User talk:Glen/Archive35: Difference between revisions

Help - sorry! Didn't know what I was doing was wrong...

Hi Glen

Thanks so much for your message. Your guidance is useful and thanks for contacting me. However I am confused. I'd really like to include links to a useful site for young people, where the content is directed specifically at them. The sections I have been attempting to add to do not offer this within the content. Is this wrong? The site I'm linking to is not a commercial service. Hope you can help me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esther Cameron (talk • contribs) December 1, 2006.

Gracenotes has smiled in your general direction!

Gracenotes ^T § has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Notability

Hey there, sorry for delay in my reply. You need to read WP:BAND - Specifically the Criteria for musicians and ensembles - at least ONE of those needs to be met for the band to meet policy. And, if you feel this is the case, then it must be clearly shown in the article itself (the editors shouldnt have to hunt for it). Good luck, msg me if I can help more  Glen  17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the page has been removed now. I've read the guidlines in the Notabilty article. The band I created the page for definitely meets the guidlines. I'm just a little unsure of what I need to do to stop the page being deleted.

For example, one of the points in the above article states: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

This is true for the band I created the page for. I did state that the members were/are part of another band. Does it need to be in a particular format or something...?

Sorry for being dull! :-) Cheers, Ollie --Olliemorr 17:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi again, I just want to clear something up. So when it comes to Notetabilty, is it just a matter of stating one or more of the required items? Does it have to be written in any particular format so that it's clear for the people checking newly added articles?

Many thanks for your help once again. --Olliemorr 17:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"POV warrior"?

I hope you don't mean me by that comment... if there's something I've done wrong, please explain. Antaeus Feldspar seems to think no one else is supposed to click the link that says "edit this page!".... it's not like I'm trying to fill the articles with "Scientology Rules!" or something. I genuinely don't think the articles I've tried to put "disputed" tags on are fair, and I've explained why on the talk pages. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment?

I am not sure how to report harrassment but User:Mr Bullockx has placed several ridiculous tags on Doll Graveyard and has begun to hassle me over it. -WarthogDemon 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

I thought Doll Graveyard was properly sourced. >_> If it's not, how can I make it sourced? -WarthogDemon 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied here: [1]. -WarthogDemon 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think you did: [2]. -WarthogDemon 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Newbie

Just out of curiosity, how old does a user have to be (in your opinion) to not be a newcomer any more? Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

yourguidetoindia.com

i just wanted to point out that yourguidetoindia.com is a non commercial site with creativecommons.org tag which permits Reproduction Distribution DerivativeWorks And the tourism guide has more information on udaipur , jaipur etc then the other tourism links which are being pointed why was this removed ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.254.65.177 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics

User:Highfructosecornsyrup has slapped a big copyright tag on this, claiming that "This article consists of little else but long excerpts from each section of the book, going beyond fair use.". This is suprising, seeing as each excerpt is a sentence long, and I think that an article on religious scripture is allowed a bit of lee-way (The Ten Commandments, for example). Anyway, the template says the article shouldn't be touched before an admin has a look at it, so I'd appreciate it if you could have a look. Thanks. yandman 10:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking MRSC

Read your msg now. MRSC has a different view to me. I'm trying to get the point over to him that he is wrong but he doesn't listen. WHat can I do but write long summaries?--84.9.192.124 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He is a sockpuppet of banned User:Irate. Please re-block him. His edits have the opposite effect to his claims. He refuses to discuss on talk pages, other than to offer abuse. MRSC • Talk 13:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See User:Irate for the range of IP addresses he uses. He mostly edits around Liverpool and Merseyside articles and removes historical information about these places. Here are some diffs for that type of behaviour: [3] [4]

He is currently editing Template:England people message to change the category scheme which is detailed at Template_talk:England_people_message#Category_topology. He claims his edits "fix" the category scheme by re-inserting borough information. This is, however, already covered by district (i.e boroughs are districts). The effect of his edits is to disrupt the scheme he claims to be "fixing". Example here: [5] [6] MRSC • Talk 15:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It matters not whether his edits are good or bad. He is banned (see the block log) until such time as he agrees to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Morwen - Talk 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He uses a dynamic IP range, and we have been reluctant to block all of it. This may become needed, though. Morwen - Talk 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

re: User talk:81.21.176.10

Hi Glen... this is almost certainly an open proxy or zombie, as the user's vandalism on wikibooks is typical of a serial proxy vandal we've been dealing with. I'm blocking it 1 month on wikibooks, will report on meta. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 

Please vote!

Hello Glen! Just would like to thank you for having reverted the edits performed against my talk page, and therefore, without further ado, I hereby award you a Barnstar for your efforts to revert vandalism. . I also call on you to vote on This Featured Article Candidate Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Follow my advice and support it! That's just my advice, you can vote as you please!)

---

Dilllonbot block

Hi Glen S. I created the User:Dilllonbot account that you just blocked. Unfortunately, I made a typo; it should have been User:Dillonbot. I was about to request a rename when you blocked it. As explained on the User:Dillonbot user page, I intend to seek bot approval for this account for a new Java framework I'm working on for the MediaWiki API. Please unblock so I can request a rename. Mike Dillon 02:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking. I don't expect there to be a "next time", but I'll keep in mind that you can create a new account using an existing account. I knew that from running MediaWiki at work, but it had slipped my mind. Mike Dillon 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Go ahead and reblock User:Dilllonbot. No need to increase admin workload (except yours I guess, but you're already involved). Mike Dillon 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Qatar talk page restoration

Hi Glen, I noticed that the recent vandalism of Talk:Qatar has resulted in (a) a redirect to itself and (b) a loss of the talk page history. Can you restore the old talk page in place of the redirect? Thanks, Walkerma 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:207.58.130.206

Thanks for that block! I was in the process of reporting the IP to WP:AIV and WP:OP. That openproxy was just carrying on from an IP that was introducing the same misinformation into those articles (where he claimed that various female singers weren't also songwriters...I actually had to go dig CDs out and check the liner notes to confirm that he was full of it). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Glenn,

Can you please explain why my account was blocked, I have just created it and have not posted anything yet?

Here is my account name: alex.sj.ca

If you could please clarify...

Thank you, Alex