User talk:Stephenb/Archive 2

• Archive1 (20th June 2005 - 20th Jan 2006)

Thank you for creating the two new categories for me. I appreciate it very much. Figaro 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so i am not like alowed to write on your 'wikipeida' wall what ever roll tide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.173.253 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on the Auckland page. Most appreciated. L-Bit 08:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if someone has made a lot of vandalism edits you can just go straight to {{test4}} or {{bv}} as if you don't put a more serious warning on some admins refuse to block. Arniep 16:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be taking a much stronger hand with blocking. If you look at the history of multiple vandals (usually schools/unis) you'd be lucky to find any decent edits whatsoever. Arniep 16:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for watching out for the Olmec article. I see that 146.145.221.129 has repeatedly hit this article today (can we somehow block him?). In any case, I sincerely appreciate your efforts. Madman 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, I blanked out the graffiti on the page you just now marked with {{db-empty}}. I thought it looked less attention getting than a big annoying notice. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. ed g2s • talk 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You give no reason for removing the tonguetwister from the Hoard page. It is humorous, illustrates the point nicely, and allows the Wiktionary link to sit properly at the top of the page without running into the text below. I would suggest you revert the change and question your aesthetic judgement if you fail to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.183.3 (talk • contribs)

I removed it because (a) it was humorous, as you point out, which has no place in the article and (b) because it was about horde not hoard! It was most certainly NOT a question of aesthetic judgement! Stephenb (Talk) 12:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Is archaeology too serious a subject to be besmirched with any hint of humour? My students certainly seem to prefer the monotony of academic solemnity to be punctuated with dashes of informal colour!

(b) The removed item is "about" both hoard and horde, and nicely illustrates the difference between the two. (And, to judge by the previous edit which I was correcting, there are those who need this difference pointed out to them) It could perhaps be reproduced on the page for horde, and even on the pages for board and bored, but a joke oft repeated will soon lose its humour!

(c) Furthermore, you will, I hope, concede that there is an aesthetic judgement to be made over which version of the page looks better, taking into account the Wiktionary link that I also added. This will only be a secondary consideration, but may swing the balance in favour of my proposal, since the page now looks ugly.

(d) In disputes such as these, which boil down to a subjective judgement over the appropriateness of a particular entry, is it very democratic of you simply to impose your own personal will, while I submit meekly? In your user page you mention that you were frustrated at losing your first ever edit, so perhaps you relish the power you now have to impose similar frustration on others! Is your word final?

I am a fervent supporter of this project as a whole, and don't wish to waste too many words over something so trivial. As a fledgeling user, I am merely interested in understanding the way the thing works. I hope you have been convinced of my responsible intentions and might be persuaded in future to rein in your instincts to mold purposeful and harmless content to suit your personal tastes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.100.200 (talk • contribs)

(a) No, but this encyclopaedia is NOT the place for humour. (b) Yes, OK, it did have both words in the sentence, but that still doesn't justify its inclusion. (c) I was not making an aesthetic judgement, and such a judgement is NOT the reason to include or exclude content. (d) I lost my first edit through incompetence, not because someone reverted it! I'm not imposing my own judgement or personal tastes, just the standard Wikipedia style, which rarely includes such humour. My word isn't final, but I don't agree that the line adds anything useful to an encyclopedia - a dictionary, such as Wiktionary, maybe. This is a simple disagreement, not a personal attack on you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains content, not a repository for humour. Humour is subjective. Stephenb (Talk) 15:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You contrast "content" with humour. Is it not possible for content to be humorous? I understand that Wikipedia aspires to a style that is more than simply the exposition of fact in the most robotic and colourless possible way. Humour and other stylistic flourishes do not by necessity undermine the objectivity of the enterprise. Surely the important thing is whether or not the content (humorous or otherwise) serves a purpose? The content we are concerned with served a clear purpose, i.e. that of illustrating the difference in meaning between the two words without the need for referring to another page. I agree that Wikipedia is not a repository for humour, but does that mean you should be shocked to find it there? And is a dictionary really meant to be any more subjective/less objective than an encyclopaedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.183.3 (talk • contribs)

Who said I was shocked? I think the reference to the homophone is enough for the article - I did not/do not think the use of humour is appropriate. And humour can undermine the objectivity of the enterprise - whether or not it does in this case is largely immaterial. Your sophistry is irritating. The article did not need the humour, so I removed it. If it hadn't been me, someone else would no doubt have done so in time. Stephenb (Talk) 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the article that needs the humour, it's the people! It is neither offensive nor misleading, so why deny people the chance to smile while they are otherwise pressing on grim-faced in their determined quest for knowledge! It will be doubly effective precisely because it is so unexpected, given the customary stifling of such sparks of life!

And I can't help adding a bit of sophistry: that someone else would do the same sooner or later is never a sound moral basis for action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.183.3 (talk • contribs)

You're right - it is neither offensive nor misleading, but it is unnecessary. Does an encyclopedia need to tell readers, for any word, what the difference is between two homophones? No, that's a dictionary. The excuse that it is humorous is not a good enough reason for it to be there either. The point of encyclopaedic articles is not to "make people smile" but to inform about a subject (not a common word's spelling or usage).

NB: I suggest you look up the word "sophistry": I never claimed my action was "moral". Stephenb (Talk) 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that the point of encyclopaedic articles is to make people smile, rather that it can be a salutary side-effect. Is humour ever necessary?

Is not a justification given for an action tantamount to a moral argument for performing that action, regardless of whether or not that action is ultimately "moral" in the sense of "morally right"?

I don't believe that my understanding of the word "sophistry" is in need of any improvement. In using the word, I meant only to admit the possibility that this debate is being continued more for the sake of argument than in the hope of seeing one's point of view prevail. I only wish you had sparred with better humour. It is, after all, a highly commendable quality!

With that, I bid you adieu

Your humble cyberservant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.100.200 (talk • contribs)

"I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?" I apologise that I did not appear to take it in the spirit intended. Had you been a logged-in user, I may have, but long experience with IP vandals has dulled my tolerance. However, I have learnt more about why I reverted your changes (and would do so again in similar circumstances, though giving a clearer edit summary), and why some users try to introduce humour into Wikpedia with good intention - such learning can only be a good thing. Adieu!  :-) Stephenb (Talk) 18:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the welcome and the heads up regarding posting of commercial links. However, i don't believe ChemFindit should be categorized as such. The site is there for people who need to source chemicals in a very technical and complex field. The complexity of the products with the different terms and variations can make this task a very difficult and arduous task and as such i believe you may be depriving people who are using your site of a very simple way of obtaining direct contact numbers of companies who sell and in some cases manufacture the product. The links i put on Wikipedia do not benefit ourselves financially in anyway so in that respect i am struggling to see how they can be classed as commercial, they simply make a difficult area easier to deal with for your visitors and as such i would like permission to add them without fear of them being removed.

Kind regards

James Crossley On behalf of ChemFindIt —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesChemFindIt (talk • contribs)

Thank you for protecting the Clive Bull page. Sadly this has been needed for a while as you can see in the history page. Please note that I am currently having my comments on the discussion page and even the protection request page removed by others, despite them requesting that changes be discussed first. The only times I reverted the Clive Bull article over the last couple of days were to remove the 'gay' claims and when someone added a duplicate statement about supporting Chelsea FC or reverted my changes that fixed some grammar, the wiki link to "I'm a celebrity get me out of here!" and removed yet another "Clive is gay with a Swedish partner and has adopted Vietnamese children" claim.

Clive Bull used to plug Wikipedia on air a lot but has stopped doing this since the vandalism began. This, in turn, only began when Iain Lee's juvenile audience were guided toward it. 81.178.125.46 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it wasn't me that {{sprotect}}ed it! Stephenb (Talk) 09:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

thanks for your message. i can understand what you are trying to communicate, however, i used the article on "Popko Peter van der Molen" figuring on Wikipedia as an example, and i am not very sure why this one should exist and mine not. Can you explain the difference in importance?

Attention: i do not object your comments on mine a priori, but do wish to understand why there is a difference.

looking forward for hearing from you

stefan.wolfrum

I've blocked the latest incarnation of the vandal, forcing him to find yet another IP. As an extra step this time I have also semi-protected his two favorite targets, Tots TV and Rainbow (television). The good news is this should stop him cold. The bad news is that pages cannot remain semi-protected forever. I'm thinking of leaving them protected for 3-4 days, and then unprotecting them. If he immediately returns, I'll repeat. I'm hopeing that being blocked from his targets may encourage him to move on once and for all. We shall see. - TexasAndroid 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the semi-protection on Tots TV and Rainbow (television). While the protection test was a success (no edits at all during the time protected), pages generally cannot remain protected or semi-protected indefinitely. The ToTs TV vandal did strike at least once during the blocked time, and he just rampaged on other pages.

Given that he only attacked each page once, or maybe twice a day, I'm inclined to say we all should just continue to revert him on sight. His edits are fairly obvious, as he makes the same changes every time. If he strikes again, feel free to drop a message on my talk page and I'll give him a short block when I see the message. I've yet to see him return to an IP once blocked, so short (24 hours) blocks appear to generally stop him for the day. Also feel free to list him at WP:AIV, again asking for a short block. If you list it up there, give a description something like "ToTs TV returning, IP hopping vandal need short block to force him to seek new IP/stop for the day". This will hopefully let the responding admin know there's little point in warning him, as he's seen and ignored plenty of warning on his old IPs. - TexasAndroid 19:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I live five minutes from Newbury I thought i'd say hello.

Joinee Whitby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs)

Hi Stephen,

Sorry about that, I could have sworn it was Shreeves! Must be a very common error.

Thanks for putting me straight.

Dan

Hi again Stephen,

Thanks for checking that out. I must admit I was convinced that I was right, but after you corrected me originally I did a Google search for "Peter Shreeve" and "Peter Shreeves" and there were far more entries for Peter Shreeve, so I assumed that you must be right. I guess there must be a lot of other people named Peter Shreeve (or a lot of confusion surrounding his name!). I thought I was going mad, it's only 5 years since he was at Wednesday and my memory might be bad, but it's not usually that bad!

Anyway, you've cleared that one up for us. Straight from the horse's mouth. Thanks for putting the effort in. Dan1980 18:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - if you search for Hanworth, you only get references to Hanworth in London (no Hanworth Common). Hanworth Common is part of Hanworth in Norfolk, hence 2 references.

Thanks

I listed it (the mentioned artist's page) in the article for deletion (here), and included the band as well. A little vote would be helpful :)

Thanks. James Kendall [talk] 09:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you like badgers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhooper123 (talk • contribs)

Hi Stephenb, I think this user can be blocked and deleted according Wikipedia's policy on usernames. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the content back? I have made regular changes to Wikipedia, I am not a new user. The source was News Shopper Ed. 343a published on 22nd January 2005. I can scan the source and send it to you.

Please revert them back to how they are.

Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.74.17 (talk • contribs)

The information you added was innappropriate for the article Stephenb (Talk) 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. If there is anything I can do for you, just ask. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping in and keeping an eye on the "ROHA" Pizza Hut vandal. He seems to have calmed down...for now. Even if he's done for the day he'll be back. It'll be with a different IP, but the vandalism will be similar attacks to the same pages he went after today. I don't particularly care to have Pizza Hut or Girls Aloud in my watchlist...but...oh well. Cheers and take care! Anger22 12:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back yet again!....third time today. Admins aren't too quick to sprotect articles as it goes against the "Wiki-way". Radiokirk sems to have caught on to this guy. He's on duty and if he sees enough of it he might take action. The IP will just keep coming back. It's just up to us to stay diligent. I use VandalProof so rv's and warnings are just a "1 button...done" job. He'll get bored long before we do. Take Care! Anger22 13:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. Happy editing! SoLando (Talk) 14:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thank you for pointing it out! It was an error on my part. I was trying to condense the templates on the FA Premier League page to look like the Football League Championship one (without the extra box), but I neglected to look at the individual club pages. It certainly wasn't my intention to remove all that info from each club page, but I think I have a fix now. - Pal 00:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do something about the user who keeps altering the above page with useless information about himself? I've already reverted four times (by mistake, I didn't realise) but he has added the content about 10 times today. Thanks Gretnagod 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks!" for fixing my user page!

Atlant 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just beat me to the revert. So much so that I nearly re-reverted it ! skorpion 11:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! I saw that you've contributed to the Yellowcard page. I've been working hard all weekend to get it into an encyclopedia-worthy article, and I think we're almost there!

There's a short list of things that still need some work at the bottom of the talk page. If you could take a look at it, maybe add more things to do, or clean up whatever you see needs work, I would sure appreciate it.

Thanks for your help. Have an awesome day! Cathryn 09:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my link about Blakes 7 fan commentaries?

I've tried to explain my definition of what constitutes a significant appearance. The reasons why Bad Wolf is acceptable is because the Daleks were the driving force behind the plot behind the scenes, much like they were in Frontier in Space. In any case, we seem to be at an impasse, so rather than reverting back and forth, let's wait for more opinions. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on them. Thanks for the notice. —tregoweth (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stephen B.

I have updated the certain page. I plan to add more very soon, but for now is there enough information on it to be prevented from being deleted?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by certain (talk • contribs)

Obviously not, as someone has already deleted it Stephenb (Talk) 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For instance the blake 7 links someone had added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhooper123 (talk • contribs)

Ah, that was you, was it? Interesting. Anyway, I removed the link because it wasn't specifically a Blake's 7 forum, but a general TV forum which required a log in. Stephenb (Talk) 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to catch that one and rv'd it. I noticed after the fact that I rv'd it to another anon edit to your userpage. Perhaps a quick double check to see if the previous IP didn't do something naughty? Cheers and take care! Anger22 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history says you cleared an article I had only just written. I'm a new user to the site and was going to link the article to other Civil War articles and ask how to correct the mistake on the article title when I noticed the article was chosen for speedy deletion. I request the time to get the article pieced together, since it had only been written for five minutes.--Gittes 08:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was already empty when I tagged it. I suggest you use the sandbox or mark your edit {{inprogress}} if you want to finish it Stephenb (Talk) 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leave it alone.. why do you keep on reverting back?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecole (talk • contribs)

I might if you could prove it! Stephenb (Talk) 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DONT NEED TO PROVE IT... JUST LOOK ON ANY WEBSITE. ITS FACT. why dont you leave subjects you dont have a CLUE about alone?? Yeh?? Also, this was the LARGEST amount of money gained from any single sporting event. FACT. I never said it was prizemoney. So now when i put this down. LEAVE IT ALONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecole (talk • contribs)

How very polite. But the edit is still factually inaccurate and not notable. Stephenb (Talk) 16:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective Other : Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20 Improve to GA standard: EastEnders Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project.

Hello to all members of WikiProject EastEnders! Please take a look at the to do list above, and see what you can do to help out! All help would be much appreciated, and the projects on this list are priorities! Thanks Trampikey 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a quick note to say that it's not necessary to subst maintenance templates such as {{wikify}} and {{uncategorized}}. These are small simple templates which don't cost much to transclude, and substing them just makes it that little bit harder to remove once they've been dealt with. No harm done, though. Cheers --Pak21 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]