User talk:Roleplayer/Archive10

Holmer Green Senior School

Hi Roleplayer, Both of us have given a 2 penneth to User talk:86.175.193.41 about adding/re-adding the above school to the High Wycombe article. Having repeated his actions again today having had polite advice from both of us I have given him a warning (level 3) to desist.Tmol42 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll continue to watch it. -- role^player 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Betsy Aardsma1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Betsy Aardsma1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this image. When I uploaded the image I read the policy on fair-use, and decided to upload the image based on the criteria:

• It's a picture of Betsy Aardsma
• No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information (on account of the fact that she's dead)
• I assume it is hosted correctly

All of this is demonstrated within the tag that is already on the image. I don't understand what more is needed - you don't make this terribly clear? -- role^player 16:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to do more than tag it that way, you also need to add a fair use rationale using the {{fair use rationale}} tag and filling things like reason for use. You already have source covered. . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Have attempted to tag appropriately, please let me know if is is now appropriately covered for fair use. -- role^player 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, that looks good now! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines on headings---capitilization

Hello. Can you tell me why Wikipedia's guidelines for headings within pages seem to be contradictory to accepted grammatical rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopadilla (talk • contribs) 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with the policy in question. Can you provide me with an example please? -- role^player 00:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why vandalism?

In what way may I ask does this constitute to 'vandalism', the Liberal Democrats are a centre-right party as described on their website in the 'About Us'. I will report yourself to higher up if you re-change my edit as I change it to centre-right. Thank you very much.

--Itvfootball (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link for where you are seeing that please? I have looked on the Liberal Democrats official website under both the "Who We Are" and "What We Stand For" sections, and neither centre-right nor Liberal Conservatism are mentioned on either page. -- role^player 12:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, and for making the change to my account. I have only seen it once, and was wondering what it was all about!!! -- role^player 15:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Champion Guy

User talk:Champion Guy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Champion Guy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Champion Guy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, though I'm afraid I have no opinion either way. The debate appears to circle around the identity of the user, not the content of the page, and all I did was welcome him/her to Wikipedia, as I am wont and will continue to do when seeing new users to the project. -- role^player 15:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Weddle Landscape Design

Just a note that I have declined your speedy deletion tag on this article. Designing several notable structures is a claim of importance and enough to avoid speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please let me know. TNXMan 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey, no probs. -- role^player 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Dobson

You've been reverting an account here. The question you've been asking is "why are you removing the text?" The real question is "why is an editor of seven years allowing unreferenced assertions about Dobson's conduct with female students to remain within a biography of a living person?" If you see unreferenced content defaming a person, your first response shouldn't be "keep it". Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the tone of your message, I don't appreciate your sarcasm and I don't appreciate the accusation of vandalism in your revert of the article. What I saw was a user who was blatantly editing an article about himself, removing content without stating in the edit summary why. Had anyone said to me "this is why" I would be only too happy to agree. I made a genuine mistake, and I have never been too proud to admit and apologise where mistakes have been made. But your message is offensive, so you won't be getting any apologies from me. -- role^player 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies weren't what I was looking for; I was looking for you to say, not do it again. Evidently that message got through. You shouldn't need an explanation for him removing unreferenced, libelous content about himself. Please explain why the onus is on the defamed person to explain that they aren't in relationships with their students? Ironholds (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it simple. I made a mistake. I screwed up. I'm sorry. Please assume good faith. You're making me feel like one of the many vandals that I have worked hard for the past seven years trying to stop on this project. Lighten up, for fuck's sake. If this is the way people get treated when they make honest mistakes on this project, I don't want to be a part of it. -- role^player 00:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"assume good faith" only goes so far. Multiple insertions of libelous material (which is what you were doing)? Ironholds (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "insert libelous material" - I have fully explained my actions and intent to you. I didn't do it "multiple" times, I did it twice. You're making me out to be the bad guy here, and I'm done talking to you because I made an honest mistake and you don't appear to be getting that. -- role^player 09:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been raised at WP:ANI WP:EAR. From what I can see, Roleplayer has admitted he made a mistake, and explained how/why he did it. Suggest that the subject is now quietly dropped and all move on and get back to improving Wikipedia, which is why we are all here, isn't it? Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

World Fireworks Championship

Dear Roleplayer Yesterday you marked my article on the World Fireworks Championship as advertising, and marked it for a speedy delete. This was my first attempt at writing an article so upon realising my error, spent quite some effort modifying my article to make it more encyclopedic. I put the 'hang on' notice and left a note on the talk page. Sadly, (unless I'm missing it within my homepage), I can see no reply from you, and I find that today my article has been deleted.

As you can probably tell, I am new to editing Wikipedia, and am a little upset that my efforts have been wiped out, despite my best efforts to make changes. You will see that there are articles on other fireworks competitions (within their own article), which I tried to base my own on and i believe are fairly similar. I don't see, therefore, where mine was so different it warranted immediate deletion.

Please advise, as I would like to resubmit.

Regards Kris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldington (talk • contribs) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kris,

I did reply to your message, and left the reply on the talk page of the article itself. I am sorry that the article was deleted; I was certainly able to see that the article had been improved. I can suggest some ways in which the article can be improved further if you intend to repost it. One of the things that is most important to Wikipedia is that all articles demonstrate their notability, by citing third party, independent references that are externally verifiable. This is particularly important for future events. So you need to demonstrate how this event is notable, which you did by stating that it was the largest of its kind, but you need to prove that. Have a read of the links that I have provided for you, and if you need any other assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. -- role^player 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roleplayer

Thanks for your reply, it's very helpful for me. Sorry I did not see your message before the article was deleted! I shall dust myself off and try again soon, following your tips and advice.

Thanks

Kris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldington (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Madragsandeepiyer's new articles

Hi, I see you placed a creation warning on this user's talk page - he is a new editor trying to create subsections in his recently created AFC request - see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Vishnu sree institute of technology. I've tried where possible to help clean up but I'm not the most diplomatic of people in terms of helping out the newbies with article creation! -- role^player 13:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw he was working in good faith, so I just placed the "general" tag (which doesn't read like a warn!, I think). Maybe I'll see if I can help his articles. — Timneu22 · talk 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Question re recent edits at Robinho

Hi, you accepted a review edit from a user at the same time as I rolled it back. I am enquiring as to who was correct in that situation? The edit in question removed a well-referenced criticism of Robinho and replaced it with gushing niceties about his family and his habit of sucking his thumb every time he scores a goal. If I was wrong to rollback I will go and undo my edit and apologise to the user. -- role^player 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roleplayer, I think this was a borderline case. In essence, the user removed some sourced negative content, and added some unsourced positive content. Looking more closely, perhaps I should have undone the edit. You've left the user a note about why you rolledback the edit, so I don't think any further action is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for looking into it for me. -- role^player 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There you go

A ward for you! It is rather an old one, and not much use to anyone else these days, so I thought you might like it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This award means so much to me and there are just too many people I would like to... oh wait, a ward. I geddit. Where's the morphine? -- role^player 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Santurce (township)

I am placing a hang on tag on this article. Reason why: the topic now at hand found at Santurce, San Juan, Puerto Rico is totally unreliable, biased and deceptive; built around partisan political groups, one reason it has been moved from title to title. Santurce is a district in San Juan that acts as an independent self-determining township within the island of Puerto Rico. (201077FOURTH (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

Then the existing article needs changing, don't create a new article to make a point. Bring it up as a topic on the existing article's talk page. -- role^player 12:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored your edits so that you can get at your text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks roleplayer and rhaworth (201077FOURTH (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

I absolutely agree the page needs more references and there's much to be done overall. Nevertheless I don't see the political bias mentioned and would appreciate if some specific samples were given. I've been doing lots of work on the Spanish article version; to the point of making it one of the best available recompilations on the topic. Santurce is as, or more important to San Juan than Harlem is to New York City. It has no self-determining government or political status but it has a reach history as part of the municipality of San Juan and it even was an independent Municipality until 1864. The official division name that's given to Santurce is "Barrio". For centuries "barrios" have been the first "geo-political" division of Puerto Rico's municipalities, but nowadays they primarily serve statistical purposes for studies and publications released by the U.S. Census Bureau and the "Junta de Planificacion" or the "Puerto Rico Planification Board". It would be great to find someone who could help translate the Spanish version of this article to help improved the English version. Regards --Javierpuertorico (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, have you left a message at User talk:201077FOURTH, as that is the person who originally made an accusation of bias in the original article. I'm only here as an independent third party! Also if there is a much better article on the Spanish Wikipedia, you can find out how to request a translation at Wikipedia:Translation. -- role^player 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings and request for clarification

Greetings Roleplayer - I've been stalking following User talk:Pitschotterli1 over at the Spanish Wikipedia and see that this editor is reproducing the same articles here, or vice versa. However, you are the first to actually put a speedy delete (so far I've been AGF and just requesting references, requests which have gone unheeded in subsequent new articles). Do you know for a fact that Türst is a hoax? Or are you going on a hunch/gut-feeling? Would appreciate rapid-ish reply, if possible. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back sooner; I have only just logged back on. What initially raised my suspicions with regard to this user is the fact that they were creating lots of articles on very different subjects in quick succession, all without any references or sources. Now I note that the article I tagged for deletion has been saved by a reviewing admin, citing references found in google books, so perhaps I was a bit swift to judge. It's just that their behaviour didn't fit what one would normally expect of a new user at Wikipedia. -- role^player 10:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So, to actually answer the question you asked, I did a search on google for Türst with some of the details from the article, and got about 10 hits, most of which were for people's surnames rather than for the content of the article itself. That raised my suspicion that it was probably an attack page rather than a genuine article. However it now appears that references have been found via google books. -- role^player 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, highly suspicious, and my knee-jerk reaction was to go for speedy deletes also - but that's what AGF is for :) - Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sumit Dubey

Hi, just to let you know that I have userfied the article Sumit Dubey, as the user was clearly writing an introduction to themselves. I therefore removed the speedy deletion tag. -- role^player 10:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! Seems like the sensible option. I've put a note on the user's talk page. Regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Got 'im...

Thanks for alerting me over on the vandalism report page. I went ahead and blocked the account you reported.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was uncertain if adding that extra bit of clarification was a wise decision; I have had reports turned down after handing out final warnings for removal of speedy deletion tags before. -- role^player 16:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Insightdolphin research company

Thank you for changing the speedy deletion tag to a multiple one. I didn't even know that option existed! -- role^player 17:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I only discovered it few days ago. It's pretty awesome. Now only if Twinkle supported it. elektrikSHOOS 17:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean it doesn't? Darn. (I'm on the laptop at the moment and have to do everything manually because I can't be arsed to download firefox...) -- role^player 17:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Normally what I do is tag an article initially with Twinkle using the more obvious definition (so that it will notify the author) and then go back in and manually add the additional ones. It's a bit involved but it works. elektrikSHOOS 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll remember that when I'm on the PC. Thanks. -- role^player 17:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania article

I recently did a minor edit on the section on Gambling in the article on Pennsylvania, but you "undid" my edit and reverted the article back to the original, which has a bit of incorrect information that I was simply correcting. I was not "experimenting" as you suggest--please explain the reason for your action. Thanks.Wikiwiji (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I note that the wording of the reference is as you have stated. -- role^player 18:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple vandalism at Spain

So they won? And I found out because some anons were calling them homos on the Spain article... Please tell me to go and get on with the stuff I've got to do but have been putting off all day.... -- role^player 21:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I canna hold it, Cap'n! She's crackin' oop!

In other words they're vandalising quicker than I can undo. Is it worth raising the level of protection temporarily? -- role^player 21:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have raised it too semi, as the vandalism is increasing faster than reviewing pending changes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also added a brief note about the FIFA world cup in the sports section, partially to placate those who'll complain about lack of updates, and partially IMO that it seems to contrast the sentence saying that it is a significant football power. Feel free to modify it. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re vandalism warning

Well gladly go fuck yourself you numb fuck.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.194.60 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your user talk page -- role^player 21:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy question re inline citations

Hi, not sure if I'm asking this in the right place, so I'll just be bold and come out with it!

At Hugh Paddick there is a long list of film, TV, theatre and radio listings. When I first added these back in 2007 I provided an inline citation for every individual listing however this was removed as it made the references section at the bottom too large and unwieldy (see this former version of the page). I am concerned that at some point someone is going to remove this list because it is now largely unreferenced using the preferred inline method. Is there a way of providing a reference for every entry in a list without having them lined up "a thru aq" at the bottom, and am I being paranoid that at some point a great deal of hard work researching that list is going to be removed? -- role^player 16:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You could try to solve this by adding a line like "Unless otherwise specified, entries in the list below are based on Times [2] or IMDB [4]" on top of each section. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You could also add an invisible comment referring to the history, so anyone trying to delete would see that there had been refs. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will bear both those suggestions in mind. -- role^player 10:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cute little kittens

(I'm supposed to explain this) This article shouldn't be deleted as even though it IS an article about a website, it is a popular website with a lot of visitors (I'm not sure how much). The site is also important to a lot of people that are most known on the site. Please do not delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessycattt (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate that it is a popular website and we really want to keep every article that is posted to make this encyclopedia more comprehensive. However you need to demonstrate the website's notability by providing verifiable external references that clearly show this. All you have provided so far is a description of the website, which is not enough, I'm afraid. -- role^player 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)