User talk:Hadrian89

Leave your comments below....

RE: 2009

 * Could I ask, is the criteria international significance or international interest?
 * If the latter, then the Blagojevich impeachment has been widely reported abroad;
 * if the former, then your edit was correct.
 * (I did check the guidelines at WikiProject Years but all it said, rather vaguely, was that 'important' events should be reported.)
 * Hadrian89 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Blagojevich impeachment on 2009 page, the article has been removed several times by other editors before I did. If you think that it is notable enough to be enlisted on 2009, you would better post your opinion on Talk:2009 and get consensus.--Belle Equipe (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Chaucer
Hi Hadrian98, and thanks for your comments on Chaucer. The article is accurate overall, and so what I've been doing is simply adding references. Any good edition of Chaucer -- W.W. Skeat's for Oxford, or modern ones such as Fisher or Benson, includes a decent life of the poet, and could provide what's needed. Some minor details might have to be sourced in the Chaucer LIfe Records, which should be in most large research libraries. Terry Jones's Who Murdered Chaucer is also a great source, though the idea that gives it its title is a speculative one. I would avoid John Gardner's bio, as it has some inaccuracies and is largely derivative anyway.

What the article would more than this, if it's to aim for GA status, is a bit of a trim and re-organization. The excerpt from the Canterbury tales that's there seems to have been chosen more for its shocking content than as an illustration of Chaucer's language; a shorter passage, perhaps the opening lines of the General Prologue, would to my mind be better. There's also not much of a sense of current Chaucer scholarship; some sort of outline should at least be there. I'll work towards adding that. Glad to see someone take an interest in the weedy garden! cheers, Clevelander96 (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

re: How to revert several revisions back
I'm pretty new editing Wikipedia, so I suspect that there is a better way, but what I've done today is to perform a diff of two widely-separated versions. On Tim Duncan today, this usually includes several cases of vandalism, and some (not all) of them have been fixed. I then just click on "undo" as though it was a single change, and Wikipedia gives me the right setup to automatically revert it.

Effectively, I'm undoing a whole slew of changes all at once...including all of the vandalism and all of the (incomplete) fixes, taking us back in time to whatever revision was good.

I suspect that there's a better way to do it, but I'm new here. Russl5445 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to Evolution
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Binarypascal (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, very funny BP. I'm sure we both know with whom the admins will side here. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you want to revert the redirect, you can't revert my typo-fixes as well, because reverting all of an edit because part of it is unsatisfactory is gaming the system, which is forbidden. --Binarypascal (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny and clever. On the other hand, putting in edits you know to be unconstructive along with smaller good edits is also gaming the system. Question of priorities: it is more important that users not be redirected to Evil than there are small problems with internal links. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Watch out
I realise that, I have been involved too, but not as heavily as you. Lets just leave him and stop feeding him? Computerjoe 's talk 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:George Washington
Thanks for fixing. No, 'tweren't me. I only use wikipedia from a signed-on status. I start at wikipedia on my watch list, so I know right away if I've been signed off, by the 30-day thing or whatever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT
POV pushing and unsourced commentary is not a violation of WP:POINT as you seem to think here. Violating POINT is when arguing that no one notices vandalism to math articles, then making vandalistic edits to a number of obscure math articles and posting the (uncorrected) difs as proof. Your point (no one will notice! we should protect these articles!) is "proven" by your disruption of Wikipedia. What the IP from the college was doing was simple vandalism, adding POV pushing essays to articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification, I should probably read all the way to the bottom of the page before I start quoting guidelines in future. Hadrian89 (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A recent revert
Hi. Recently you restored content to non believer evolution's talk page which non believer evolution had removed themselves. Per WP:TALK, users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages whether they are a registered editor or not. It is certainly tempting (and understandable) to want to restore warnings to potentially problematic users, but WP:TALK does not provide for this option. Be assured that admins who may be considering blocking a certain user will check their talk page histories, where all previous warnings are still visible. Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Hey did you write at my user page? Oh did u edit my articles or requested to be deleted immediately User talk:Non believer evolution

William of Tyre
Thanks! It's not quite GA (or FA) worthy yet, but I'm trying to get it there soon. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: 4chan
...And of course BBC News regularly deletes such trivial comparisons from their articles. Ottre 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

White Rose
Hi, yes I saw. It was largely illiterate and done by someone whose English is ... errr... let's say, less than good.

However, there was support for his notion that "von Moltke" was behind the smuggling out of the last leaflet to Sweden and then to England. I added a footnote on this. Frau von Moltke said this in a speech she made to the White Rose Association after the war. This doesn't appear in the bio of Helmuth James Graf von Moltke but there's no reason to suspect that the old lady would lie about such a thing and Helmuth certainly had the connections to pull off such a plan. The book itself is available via Google books where you can download pieces of it.

Anon user 163.1.209.10
Hi Hadrian89, I noticed that you had issued a final warning (diff including the editor's response) to this anon user on 27 February 2009 after actions such as. Today this user edited Jimbo's user page to add a claim about his sexuality and was immediately reverted by ClueBot. ClueBot left a level 1 warning on his/her again recently blanked talk page. Surely that is a bit mild? Also, looking at the contribution history, I see no main space edit from that IP address that was productive or added to the encyclopedia. EdChem (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tamlin (Тамлин)
Hi there! I'm afraid, that my English is not too perfect to understand what references you want me to add. Could you plz show me an example? Will appreciate any help!

Blears
The derogatory name calling in a couple of papers is not realy fitting in a biography of a living person and it is unworthy of us and wikipedia to propagate it. It would be better to remove it. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

The reallity of her situation is not important to me, helping to create a balanced article is, and the comment is irrelevent in her life story. I do not really want to discuss the chipmunk or flipper or whatever name calling with other editors. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

you see how it works, so fast, I typed in to google ...chipmunk blears.. and it came up first...wikipedia.... It adds nothing to the article and imo is derogatory name calling and BLP guidlines are quite strict and are presently being tightened.. as far as I know..yes I took it out and I also took out the edit b4 from londonplayer calling Derek draper ...dolly... and I will have a look at all his edits as they are probably all similar. Perhaps you would like to talk about that section that I commented on the cites not working on the talk page? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

here... [] (Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

It is meant to be about the hoarding of nuts as a ref to the expenses story.. which is already being given to much space in biographies, It is not widely known and is actually an attempt by those right wing papers to get people from salford to start calling her that and a push to insert a connservative in salford and it is meant to be derogatory, it is not a nickname widely used at all, and as you rightly say...it is not really notable in her life to be worth inserting.. I would take it out as derogatory but you are right .. that is not a good reason to remove it...but I would say that that was why it was inserted in the first place! Of course it is not really libelous, but if we are to create a really decent article then stuff like that is not needed even if 2 newspapers are reporting it in the present political climate... ta for looking at the cite/ broken..I did know that, and if I thought the piece was worth keeping I would have repaired them, I don't think it's worthy of a paragraph..do you? I was thinking of rip-in it out ? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

American Realm
I wonder if the American Realm is part of the British Empire.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

William of Tyre comments
Hi Hadrian, I didn't know what you meant before when you said you left comments, and I just noticed this subpage. I've been working on the article some more; I think I will leave some comments of my own on the talk page, so if you'd like to take a look and see what still needs to be improved, that would be helpeful. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Truth
Thanks Hadrian! We were just going to add a period and got carried away. Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Article Editor Requests Your Response
Wikipedia: Civility

(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

ARTICLE:

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)

CONTESTED EDIT:

19:28, 15 March 2010 – Hadrian89

Undid revision 350056201 by 24.107.182.16 WikiProject banners are not subject to WP:TOPPOST; see WP:TPL

Are we at an impasse? (WP:DR)

Does the WikiProject Death banner contribute to the primary purpose (article improvement) of the Article Talk Page(TP)? Or, is it merely an editorial commercial for that WikiProject?

Obviously, it's an editorial commercial without any direct importance to the current Article improvement discussion. Therefore, its proper position in the TP is a chronological "Section" – because a commercial banner is no more important than any other topic for TP discussion about article improvement.

In addition WP:TOPPOST is an official Wiki "Guideline" whereas WP:TPL is merely an unofficial "information" page (not an official Wiki Guideline).

Wiki Love to you :-)

(WP:EQ)

P.S.

Please respond to my User Talk Page within 72-hours. If you don't, I will assume you are in agreement with me and I'll revise your previous edit without further discussion.

24.107.182.16 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Feedback?
Just a head's up, I'm soliciting feedback on the VHEMT article in the talk section for the current revision, I've made a substantial revision in the effort to meet WP policy guidelines. Please take a look and let's discuss how to improve the article. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation
You are invited to participate in WikiProject Disability, a project dedicated to developing and improving disability related articles. Bib (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:College Coat of Arms.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:College Coat of Arms.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)