User talk:Redvers/Archive40

Re: File:Roses growing in front of graves, Menin Road South Military cemetery 977687052.jpg
I did miss it. Thanks for pointing it out. --Rrburke(talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
'''I wanted to take the time to thank you for your messiges and for helping me. Have a good night.'''

-- Zink Dawg  -- 01:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Jan Moir article: wording
Hello. You reverted my rewrite of the Stephen Gately section in the Jan Moir article. I rewrote the article because the original was badly worded and didn't follow a chronological order.

For example, there is a sentence about the PCC investigating (19 October), then shortly after there is a sentence which reads: "On 18 October 2009, Scotland Yard..." The revision I made put things in the order they happened so the article would be easier to follow, yet you say it doesn't make sense until about the sixth paragraph???

As far as I can tell, it makes perfect sense, outlining what happened first (Jan Moir published the article), then the public outcry and then Jan Moir's response. It ends with a sentence on the total number of complaints as of 19 October to put things in perspective and inform the reader of current events. I've no problem with my edits being reverted, as long as there is a good reason for doing so. The current version of the article is, at best, messy and I think needs to be reworded. How would you suggest my rewrite and the current version could be improved??? Sw258 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sw258! I had a couple of issues with your rewrite. The first was that it removed a lot of sourced statements and their sources. It looked like the article was being censored rather than rewritten. The substantive issue I had was with the structuring. Although chronological writing has its place and is very useful, it must be used with care. When I studied journalism, we were taught that a good article told people what you were going to tell them, told them it and then summarised what you'd just told them. This also applied to each paragraph. An encyclopedia doesn't need the summary bit, but the rest still applies. The current, unchronological, article basically runs: what she said, how others read it, what the reaction was, how she reacted, how others reacted. So the important points - the reason for the section existing - are there in the first couple of sentences. Your version was more: she wrote an article, time passed, the PCC received complaints, someone said it was homophobic. In your version, it's not until quite some way in that we discover what the article was about and why people objected to it. Chronologically it's perfect, but from an imparting-information-to-the-reader point of view it failed. I believe that we need to tell the reader what we're about to tell them before we tell them it in detail, otherwise even the most interesting of paragraphs has the interest drained out of it. The current version is messy and could indeed be more chronological, but not at the expense of the hook. Does that make sense? ➜ Redvers talk ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞  07:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes perfect sense. Thanks for getting back to me on that. Sw258 (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
This seems a bit too long, don't you think? I mean, IPs do contribute to the page...—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  10:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! Yeah, but I'll drop it back down before I knock off for the day. This way, 4chan don't have a clock ticking down until the page unprotects itself. It's all dependent on my whims (mwuh ha ha!) or on someone else unprotecting it before then. ➜ Redvers ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞  10:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, and if you're not too busy, maybe I could have some help tracking down a sockmaster. Check my recent contributions for what I refer to.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  10:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't see who the sockmaster is, but can see 3 accounts: 1 2 3 blocked recently. Don't know if there's anything worthwhile for a CheckUser here. ➜ Redvers ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞  10:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My search has so far turned up nothing. Did you check the deleted histories of those articles for the creators/major editors?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  11:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That got me two more accounts 4 and 5, the latter blocked a year and a half ago:


 * 14:17, 25 April 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs | block) blocked Entlinkt ist ein Schwein! (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (harassment/vandalism campaign spilling over from de-wiki)


 * which looks like Fut Perf is the next stop for more info. ➜ Redvers ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞  11:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. However, I have to get to bed..  I have an appointment tomorrow and I need sleep.  That noted, could you leave me a message on my talk page as a reminder to file an SPI and contact Fut Perf?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  11:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and it turns out I remembered anyway, sometimes I don't, so it's better to be safe than sorry. As to the mop, I don't have one for two.. maybe three reasons: 1. I don't wish to nominate myself, I wish to wait until someone feels I would make a good admin, 2. No-one has nominated me yet, 3. I don't know if I'm ready..  If you feel I am after reviewing my edits, go ahead. :) —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Casale Media (2nd nomination)
Hi, Redvers, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Casale Media (2nd nomination) since you were involved in the first AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KNR Greenland National Broadcasting logo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:KNR Greenland National Broadcasting logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A busy vandal
Thanks for the |revert on my page. Cheers!  freshacconci  talk talk  15:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ooops
Apologies. Accidental click on my watchlist - no ulterior motive. Reverted immediately. All best, Nancy  talk  11:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Very easily done. We're all guilty of it now and again! :o) ➜❝Redvers❞ 11:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking
Dear ,

Thank you for blocking Milkchat.

Did you see my final comment?

He/she actually edited after I reported them!

Best Wishes,

Limideen 13:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Limideen 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not unusual for vandals. They commonly edit through all the warnings - that's what allows us to block them. ➜❝Redvers❞ 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppose, but I've never noticed it after I've reported them.
 * Obviously they edit after warnings but I've never seen them edit after being reported!

Flossing for extra life
Pericarditis and gingivitis do have some relation (sourcable, if anyone can be bothered). _If_ your perio health is bad enough, and your cardio health is risk-prone, then your gums really might have a go at killing you a little more quickly than you'd otherwise have lasted. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Polish death camp" controversy
The MOS says the quotes are discouraged, not forbidden. This is a special case, as it was discussed on article talk. There was a consensus to include the quotes.radek (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Four editors do not a consensus make. Requested moves is down the hall. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it pretty much does, given that these are editors who actually pay attention to the article. RM is down the hall and that's where you should've taken it first.radek (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD. Boldly moved, reverted, now for discussion. The move should have gained wider consultation as clearly you don't have a consensus to use scare quotes. A consensus amongst interested parties is not a consensus, it's a stitch-up. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, look, it's not a kind of article that you're going to have dozens of editors fighting over each other to comment. A typical article of this sort is going to have 3 or 4 editors, from various backgrounds who actually pay attention to it. So then yes, that makes a consensu.
 * Now, if you have some kind of serious objection then please bring it up on talk, in the appropriate place, rather than unilaterally moving it and throwing the MOS at people. I get the "bold" and the "revert" part, but I don't see the "D" part. Showing some familiarity with the subject matter would be appreciated. Thanks.radek (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Does MOS actually say not to use scare quotes? On WP: Polish death camps controversy, three or four editors agreed on the talk page that quotes should be used to indicate that Polish death camps do not exist, and the entry is about the myth of the Polish death camp. The title without scare quotes reinforces the myth.Chumchum7 (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Scare quotes are never a good thing; consider finding a title that expresses the facts without implying a judgement. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what the guideline says. "Discouraged" is not the same thing as "forbidden".radek (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it's not what the guideline says. It is what I say. And thus you don't have a consensus on the use of scare quotes within this article's title. WP:RM is your next stop. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it works the other way. One editor cannot hold consensus hostage. I believe that's a quote from the policy itself, but am too lazy too look it up right now. So it's actually up to you, to go to RM.radek (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And wait, are you really saying it is "forbidden"? A little confused on that.radek (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough with the wikilawyering. Go to WP:RM rather than trying to browbeat me into submission. I've already said: you did not actually have consensus (too few people, none of them neutral) and therefore the onus is on you to obtain the consensus. WP:RM is the place to do that. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, no; you'd rather edit war. Fine. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on Redvers, who says we're not neutral? We may be specialists on this subject, but that does not logically indicate we are biased. The issue was raised by me, discussed by several editors, and then I respectfully waited a long time to see if there is any dissenting voice. After a long time waiting, there was no disagreement, so I went ahead and made the change. You can surely see that from our point of view it seems that an uninvolved party is wading in to stop our work, just after we respectfully and consultatively worked at a common understanding. If you had discussed this with us first, without unilaterally undoing our work, we might be in a slightly more constructive situation right now. Chumchum7 (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough. I'm disgusted by Radeksz's behaviour and your collective decision to pretend to have obtained "consensus" on such a terrible move in such an obscure place. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Shepperton
Thanks for protecting the page. Could you also block all the vandals? -Reconsider the static (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Between and me, I think we got 'em all. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Theres so much vandalism going on at the moment. Need more people to do recent changes patrol -Reconsider the static (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering
How do you know that 219.88.166.195, 68.113.25.2, and 123.211.73.44 are open proxies? On the surface only 98.247.230.86 seemed like one. -- Menti  fisto  09:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yak. You could be right. I checked 98.247.230.86 and I'm sure it is, so made an assumption. Let me doublecheck. BRB. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 09:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How to look like an idiot in three easy clicks... not open on any common ports after all. Reduced the three of them down to 55hrs for the /b/ vandalism. Cheers! ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 09:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!!!
MisterWiki  talk   contribs  01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting just to annoy you
On your block message to Jonny4026:
 * ...in order to prevent further damage to Wikipedia, I have therefore blocked you from editing indefinitely

Not to split hairs, but if you blocked him from "editing indefinitely", that still means he could edit for a finite period. You probably meant to say you blocked him indefinitely from editing. This message is more based on my current boredom than on it being helpful in any practical sense, so I apologize in advance for having wasted your time, if you didn't find this just as entertaining as I did. Equazcion  (talk)  12:34, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm usually almost good with that English and how it is wrote and stuff. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 12:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for rectifying this potential powder keg of a situation. Equazcion   (talk)  12:47, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. That was such a dangerous situation. That user would have totally misinterpreted that notice. Paulmchisback (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC) (There were elements of sarcasm in the preceding comment)


 * Sarcasm is terribly dangerous. It can even lead to indef blocking, assuming the the one using the sarcasm is also a childish vandal. I find. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 14:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonny4026
I see that you have blocked Jonny4026, you might want to take a look at his user page. Click23 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Swept up. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 14:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Click23 (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Respect!
Hi Redvers. You are one tough, no-nonsense admin! Thanks for ridding me (and Wikipedia) of 1½ trolls. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

from rastersoft
rastersoft(talk) Hello. You asked me if I plan to do more contributions to wikipedia other than the Devede page (which, by the way, has been erased). I mainly do edits fixing little errors, but created an article in the [spanish wikipedia] (the one about delay memories). All the editions done by 193.146.210.226 are mine, but done from my old computer and as "anonymous". The same with the ones done from 193.146.38.151 (the new IP, which I used for some months before the current NAT system was set). About Devede, I found that it was named in the page about software for authoring DVD discs, but it lacked its own page, that's why I created it.

rastersoft(talk) Hello again. Finally I managed to know why it was deleted: A7. Would it be enough to explain that it's a well-known program in the Linux community (I think that a search in google can convince you), and that it aims to be easy-to-use and intuitive for the average user? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastersoft (talk • contribs)


 * You can recreate the article in your userspace (User:Rastersoft/DeVeDe) but you'll need to assert notability for the product from independent, third-party sources and be very aware that you mustn't edit with a conflict of interest. The number of Google hits it gets is immaterial. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 11:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * rastersoft(talk) Unfortunately this can be labeled as an obvious conflict of interest, because I'm the author of the program (caesar's wife...), so I suppose it's better to just forget it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastersoft (talk • contribs)


 * Fair enough. ⬅ ❝Redvers in a one-horse open sleigh❞ 11:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)