User talk:Redfarmer/Archives2008/January

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 03:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Redirect answer
Hi! I had to take a look at the article in question, but I thought I knew the answer even before I did. It started out as a non-article from the so-called B-Movie Bandit. The guy was one of the most annoying trolls on all the Internet but his nonsense seems to have subsided. An admin suggested that some of these could be made into redirects until a better article came along, which it has. Hope this helps! - Lucky 6.9 21:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright tags
Thanks for uploading Image:Nbranden.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
--User:Jenmoa 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin of "Chuck Cunningham syndrome"
Redfarmer,

Following my own suggestion on Talk:Chuck Cunningham syndrome, I would like to ask if you have a source for this term as it has been suggested the article be renamed because no one can find any evidence it was in wide enough use prior to the article.

Are you still out there? You appear not to have contributed in eight months. Daniel Case 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville
Greetings. I'm just dropping a line to all Louisville residents I can find to ask them to consider joining the new WikiProject Louisville. It has been determined there is a *lot* of work to do yet remaining for Louisville-related subjects, and therefore we would definitely appreciate your presence. If by chance you are unable to join us, that's all right, but if you can, please tell other Louisvillians about this worthy project. Thank you for your time! &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 00:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

CSI Miami edits
I am a little concerned over your creation of a lot of smaller subsections to cover information that - by itself is rather anemic. As well, I am a little concerned over the scope of the changes being made. I agree that changes are necessary, but perhaps you might find that involving your fellow editors is going toassist you greatly in dealing with possible reversions to your edits, reinstating prior editions. Please understand that I think that 95% of what you are doing is solid - you just need to discuss the edits more in depth before you do them. Failing to do so is how edit-wars are born. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. I saw the bit where you noted that clean-up needed to take place. What I was saying in at least two places was theat you needed to discuss what you were going to do ahead of time - before you did it. For example, the resulting filming section is anemic, containing two, short sentences, and is quite likely going to be folded back into anoother part of the article soon enough. If you are going to take the responsibility for creating a new section, discuss the changes first, and then fill it with more than two sentences culled from the previous version of the article. That's part of the clean-up, too. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, i think that 95% of what you are doing is fine. What I keep saying is that you should discuss your edits BEFORE making them. yes, you are patterning it off another article. When you notice something is going to end up as a stub, go to the discussion page and get some insight from your fellow editors. The sun will still come up tomorrow and Wikipedia will not explode in a flaming ball of internetical light if the matter goes unresolved for a few days. rest assured that it will get resolved eventually. let people know what you are doing, or, in this case, what you have specifically done. It helps others note get upset. You need to discuss beforehand, not just notify. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the stubs, this would be one of those perfect examples of where discussing the issue should take place in the discussion page. this is exactly what happens when you don't inform before doing large-scale edits - bit issues pop up. Let's now go o the article discussion area. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the review
thank you very much for the review and the pointers.

i will be getting around to implementing the changes immediately

yours sincerely, Binarymoron (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Last of the Summer Wine
Thanks for listing the article for reassessment. You have done excellent work improving the article, and therefore I have reassessed to B Class. Tiddly -  Tom  15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion
First of all, Congratulations for the Editor's Barnstar!

Please remember to bold your decisions for Articles for Deletion, which you didn't do for Robot (t.A.T.u. song). Just a friendly notice! Ohmpandya  ( Talk )  18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed it just as you sent the message. Just me being absent minded. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Daecheon Beach merge
Hi, I have found another, identical article :-( There are some issues so I should welcome your views at Talk:Boryeong. BlueValour (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting that vandal. I blocked them for making personal attacks.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: PROD
Just use common sense. If you feel an article should be deleted, there's nothing wrong with PRODing it or AfDing it any any stage. PROD is designed for non-controversial deletions (if no one contests by removing the template in five days, deletition is automatic), AfD is designed for if a discussion would be a better idea. Just go with your better judgement. "Rules of thumb" are just guidelines some editors follow and are not official policies and shouldn't be nessacarially treated as such. (And if it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, feel free to tag it as such.) Hope this helps! Mr Senseless (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Oldham Barlow

 * Unbelievable that anyone could place a speedy delete on a Royal Acadamician and a painter with several works in The National Portrait Gallery. Tag removed. Paste (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, in retrospect that did sound a bit blunt, but I'd still say that you must have been very hasty with your tag to say the very least, it's not as if it was tricky to see the notability! But as I say I see your point... Paste (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)