User talk:Hoppytroffy

Will you stop messing around with my page please. Johnathon_Livingstone_Seagull(talk) 16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not vandalise your profile page the way you vandalise mine, instead I ask you to stop. I am happy to debate the issues with you. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we will chat. I dispute that I am a vandal. Your references to undoing my edits as reverting vandalism is offensive in the same way you do not like my edits of your profile page. Two wrongs and all that. I have taken the mature approach now. I hope you will but I do not expect it. Hoppytroffy (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no equivalence between my calling your edits "vandalism" and your inciting other people to contact my boss, so don't try and belittle what you did with "two wrongs and all that". "Once bitten twice shy" might be a more appropriate epithet, wouldn't you say...?Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard, I gave you the chance to discuss on K's elsewhere and you ignored it simply as you were still making ludicrous demands of me so I am not going to indulge you now. I have only suggested if people are concerned at a public servants apparent use of the net they should contact someone to address it. If that person has done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. If they have been pissing around on the net in working hours then why should the taxpayer subsidise it. I am sure you would agree with that Richard. Hoppytroffy (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hoppytroffy (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
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. JSpung (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my remarks on this issue. JSpung (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Read, noted, accepted. Appear to be reasonable and you have been even handed this time even though you appear to be ass-kissing Exworthy in your comments to him. Hoppytroffy (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Sophie Ellis-Bextor has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Mygerardromance (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Stuart McIntyre
A tag has been placed on Stuart McIntyre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Exxolon (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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. JSpung (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. JSpung (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I merely made a small amendment to reflect his claim to be a Kingstonian fan. It is not a verifiable fact. Surely that is acceptable within Wikipedia ?The fact that both Exworth and Ekins are keyboard warriors on their own forum but hide behind your apron strings here says plenty about them. I won't touch their profiles again. I also think you showed a remarkable lack of even handedness on a previous issue Hoppytroffy (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Stuart McIntyre
How dare I delete the page? Well, possibly because he quite clearly fails the notability criteria for footballers (WP:ATHLETE) as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought you had quit and had a pathetic hissy fit Hoppytroffy (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might need to read WP:DICK before making any further contributions. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  11:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I thought you had quit and had a pathetic hissy fit. In fact you did. In fact take some advice, free of charge. Next time you throw a hissy fit and flounce of in a petulant, childish, huff try going for longer than a couple of days. It just looks so unseemly otherwise. Like it was an ego trip to get a few people to say "don't leave, we need you" and massage an otherwise fragile ego. Also suggest you read the link you referred to yourself as it does seem rather fitting for you Hoppytroffy (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Natalie Ogle
A tag has been placed on Natalie Ogle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roger Rowland
A tag has been placed on Roger Rowland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords
We have conflicting reports on whether or not she died, so until the situation stabilizes, we aren't going to assume. Prodego talk  20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hoppytroffy (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Fair Enough

Blocked
Blocked for your actions on the Gabrielle Giffords. Don't do that again. — RockMFR 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Why ? I amended it in line with a report from a credible source, Channel 4's website, that reported she had died. That is no reason to block me. It was not a malicious edit and it was not vandalism Hoppytroffy (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I unblocked you, he should have warned you. In the future make sure to read the edit notices! Cheers, Prodego  talk  20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Prodego, I guess some people are just trigger happy when it comes to blocking people, simply because they can. Hoppytroffy (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Norman Tipton


The article Norman Tipton has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non notable actor playing minor roles. WP:BEFORE suggests no additional sources to help improve article"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)