User talk:Harry the Dirty Dog/archive

Re: Be careful of WP:BLP
Harry the Dog WOOF  16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Those guidelines refer to articles, not talk pages. The talk pages are about the discussion of the article's content and potential content, which means that there is absolutely no reason to edit out talk page's edits due to any article guideline whatsoever. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of references have been added. The reference to the McCann's friend involvement in launching the false kidnap thesis was taken out due to not having enough time to dig for it. --Mecanismo | Talk 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GP of Canada founding convention
I apologize, I thought you had taken that out of the article, not added it. Thanks for adding in a reference. GreenJoe 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Username concern
Hey there, I hope you don't mind, but I removed your archived talk page from the category "usernames that editors have expressed a concern over". You username is fine, however it had been left in that category and the end result was your archived talk page in the category, so I just removed it from the original username concern template. I hope that is okay SGGH speak! 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie
Recreation of a page that was speedily deleted after surviving two afds. Vividfan (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Barry Jameson edits
Hey Harry, can you just add an edit summary when you revert so we all know where we stand with the whole paedophile thing? It's a very sensitive issue and I'm doing my best to work with all sides and if you could just explain why you're reverting Barry's edits that'd really help with clarity. Anyway, hope you're ok, all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like that, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, not a problem at all. I can just see this is a pretty sensitive issue so we all need to play by the rules as strictly as possible.  All the best! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your statment in the edit summary of the Madeleine McCann article:

"Is there such a thing as a legal peadophile network? There are legal adoption networks, but you'd be hardpressed to point to a legal pedophile network"

Here are three legal paedophile/hebephile support/activist networks, which have been discussed on Wikipedia:


 * http://www.annabelleigh.net/
 * http://www.boychat.org/
 * http://anu.nfshost.com/

(Those websites are not illegal in any jurisdiction, but may offend some people)

I still maintain that the term "illegal" needs to be used in the Madeleine article, but I've already made two identical reverts. Barry Jameson (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Username
Would it be possible to get a more reasonable short username that isn't a complete sentence? -- Cat chi? 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just call me Harry! It's not the longest username around! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I know that. It is just not very RC friendly. RC is recent changes. -- Cat chi? 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this? (Finally got a round tuit!) Harry the Dog (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that is more compact. However you merely altered your signature not your username. User:Harry the Dog hasn't been taken so you can request a username change to that. -- Cat chi? 13:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can change your username at Changing username.--Hu12 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Madeline McCann article
Unfortunately, Wikipedia's protection policy does not really say that a single vandalism a day is worth protecting over. Articles get vandalised quite frequently, and this article receives a lower threshold of vandalism than I have seen for most high-profile articles. We don't even semi-protect the main page articles like TFA and DYK, and we take a certain level of vandalism as a given. If the edit war returns, I will protect the article. If the vandalism becoms rampant, I will protect the article. However, one vandalism edit a day is hardly a large amount. This page is on my watchlist, and will be for a long time. You can trust me to return protection when I see a problem arise. I just haven't seen it yet. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 16:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Modifying of other users' comments
Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. --Hu12 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * No need for me to donate one then! I was just thinking how much time and sheer bloody effort you put into this article.  Well done, keep it going.  Nothing more to be said.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose it will for a while. Keep up your great work.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Self-Published Sources"
Your recent edit to Code Lyoko said that the Code Lyoko OFFICIAL website is a unreliable self-published source. No, It's not. It's the OFFICIAL CL website. Just thought you should know this... -Karaku (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of warnings
I noticed this edit. Just a friendly heads up, it's perfectly acceptable for users to remove warnings from their talk page. See WP:USER. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Archiving may be preferred, but users are largely "allowed" to do whatever they want on their talk page. It's poor etiquette to revert another user's changes to their own talk page. Also, please respond here (if you feel the need to do so) to keep the discussion in one place. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say besides referring you to WP:USER again. It clearly states users can remove content from their talk page. It clearly states that the removal of a warning is commonly accepted as an acknowledgement of having read that warning. It clearly states that evidence of the warning remains in the page history. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but my interpretation of Karaku's edit summary was that it was shorthand for "removing the comment regarding vandalism". I doubt he was actually labelling the warning itself as vandalism or implying that the editor who left it was a vandal. Regardless, dissecting other users' edit summaries for their own talk page is borderline ridiculous. He could've used virtually any summary he wanted and the fact remains that he's within policy to remove that warning. Reply if you like, but I don't see a need to continue discussing this further. We both appear to have some understanding of policy and my intent here was not to get into in-depth discussion. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Ellis Catholic Primary School
Hi I should be grateful if you would watchlist this page - I have just noticed that an editor removed a sourced section about Madeleine McCann. 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The other day..
Yeah, sorry about that thing on User talk:Karaku. I feel really dumb. Would you believe that for all the time I spend fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, I've never read the entire decline-unblock template slowly enough to parse each sentence? heh, yes, very very embarrassing... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rikara
Whoa! I am certainly not a sock puppet. :-/ Compare 6969fosho6969's edit and my edit, which removes the vandalism. Between these two edits, User:The Rogue Penguin reverted and then accidentally unreverted User:6969fosho6969's edit, so I fixed it. Nhjm449 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elisabeth Fritzl
I have nominated Elisabeth Fritzl, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Fritzl. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

China Shipping Group
Please see the article China Shipping Group. Please tell me how this article should be deleted. Please remove the deletion tag Ricky@36 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have complicated the case and you did not state any reason why it should be deleted. Please review the article again on which part should be deleted. Don't escalate the case to other editors. Ricky@36 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You also did not state the reasons on removing my article and only placed the deletion tag. I posted the hangon tag and state the reason on retaining the article in the talk page. However, you ignored me and said the case would be escalated to others. Ricky@36 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Show Articles
Hey, the reason I deleted the information from the Indian show articles is that it was taking up too much room, and contained far too much info that hardly anyone would want to read. Add to that the fact that there was a lot on un-wiki material, like exclamation marks and heavy POV in some places --Maurice45 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AFCI Edit Warning
Harry, I received a message today about an article I tried to edit, and wanted to explain my reasons it took three attempts. You sent a message about 3 reverts and since this is the first time I've tried to modify a wiki article I guess I am not familiar with the rules. I tried to edit (delete) part of an article that was full of misinformation and it also went off subject. I didn't include my reason for this edit as I did not know it was required from the instructions provided on the Wiki site. The text was put back in and I was given the reason. I tried to correct my mistake and included a detailed explaination of my reasons and deleted the incorrect text again. Then I went to a different section of the same article to try and add information that was more up to date and would make it clear what the item did and what the current electrical codes and UL listings required, thereby making it easy to see why the original article was was grossly incorrect. I received a second message from "Harry the dirty dog" that I appeared to be in an edit war because I had three reverts in a single day. I am not in a "war" that I know of, I just saw some seriously incorrect information on a topic I have spent several years researching. I am sorry that the lack of proper instructions on Wikipedia's site caused caused me to have to make a second attempt to edit the article, and I am even more sorry I have read the instructions and still don't know how to edit two sections of the same article at one time, and therefore I had to edit it the third time to add information to the same article. If I had known how much time it would take to try and make a useful contribution to this article I would have never bothered, and you can be sure I will never try to improve your articles again. Thanks.

ZZZ (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How to edit
You obviously missed the point of my communication, and my last statement that I would not waste any further time trying to edit an article here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACE-ELECTRICIAN (talk • contribs) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hadsomefun
Doesn't matter too much - there's no blatant attacks, and all the unblock templates have been disabled. Leaving it up also gives evidence for why the page was protected. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful when reverting using Twinkle
I'm certain that it was a mistake, and these are very easy to make with Twinkle; I've made the same sort of mistakes several times, so this is just to let you know that it is very easy to make these mistakes and to be careful about this. You recently reverted some vandalism to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann in this edit. However, your reversion also cancelled my edit, which was the one performed just before the vandal's. I have now redone my edit, so no need for you to do anything, just remember that Twinkle can very easily lead to this sort of problem. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. Cheers! HtD (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission
Thanks for being attentive to improper deletions, but I think you may have acted too hastily here. The material I deleted was redundant with similar material earlier in the article, in Divine Light Mission. The material was discussed at talk:Divine Light Mission. If you'd like to jump into the discussion and give you views on why the material belongs in the article in that place then you'd be most welcome. If you don't think the material is better in that place then maybe your revert wasn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you removed hospital photo ?
(by : Dsant) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsant (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''I am giving Cohen the same warning. You guys are both well-established editors and should know better than to engage in this type of unproductive edit-warring. '' Jaysweet (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)