User talk:Adrian M. H./Archive3

Talk page archive, vol. 3

---

Workbenches

Thanks for your help and feedback on my attempts.

I added as references all the books and articles I read for the material for the article. I didn't do embedded footnotes because the 'Citing Sources' page indicated this should be adequate unless a particular statement was likely to challenged.

I also moved most of the illustrations to a gallery - as recommended in the style guide.

Is there anything else that stands out as needing attention?

I reworked the main 'Workbench' article too. Please let me know if I made a total hash of it.

Bob 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference-wise, it's OK. You forgot to remove the tag, though, so I did that just now. The content fork problem still exists, and we have to cater for the most logical article titles and organisation of content in order to make WP work well for readers. If were to search for Workbench, I would expect to see at least some of the content from the newer article, albeit in a more pithy format that is strictly encyclopædic with no hint of "DIY book" about it. That's not meant as a criticism, but an observation. Have a read of WP:CFORK (ignoring the bits about POV, which don't apply in this case). I know that it might be a bit of a task to make a good merger, but it really is recommended. Your work on the older article is pretty good so far. By the way; well done for licensing your images correctly and uploading them to Commons as well! Most new editors fall at the licensing hurdle. Adrian M. H. 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_sport_governing_body

Hi, would you mind me changing the 'Year of formation' in the infobox template to 'Formation date'? This way it offers more flexibility to give, for example, the month as well as the year of formation. AlexJ 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all; no need to ask, Alex. I just opted for the year because I thought that the exact date would not be widely known in many cases. Adrian M. H. 17:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure as you designed the template. My thinking is year is probably sufficient for older organizations but for modern ones, editors may wish to provide more exact details. Thanks, AlexJ 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have returned the external link to USAC. We normally include the official website in BOTH the infobox and an external link section in the bottom. This way an article with an infobox is consistent with other articles that do not have an infobox. Royalbroil 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Adrian M. H. 08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Troilus

Thanks for agreeing to help out with the copy editing. You're going to find a lot of genitives where I've gone a different way from you on the issue of s's. (Not only with "Troilus" but "Achilles", "Sophocles" etc. too. I was always taught to omit the s after classical and biblical names. Looking at Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending in s, z, or x, different sources seem to argue each way on this.--Peter cohen 10:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Adrain, thanks for your comments on my page and your work on the first third of Troilus. The medieval/Renaissance section is about the same size as the lede and ancient stuff combined. The modern bit is a lot smaller. I had noticed your work in the middle of the day and that you had reverted the apostrophe change. Agreeing to disagree seems a perfect solution. If I ever look at something by you, I shan't start removing your final esses.

I saw your comments too and have worked through all the block quotes, as you suggested. It was a certain amount of effort to find out how to format verse in blockquotes. I started by trying to look at the Wordsworth and Shakespeare pages to see how they did it and found they were doing things as I was before without blockquotes, but I eventually found a help page.

I'll have a think about the essay text and about the list format. On the latter, I found something somewhere saying that definition lists were the way to format things with keywords. I'm not sure of the wiki status of this (guideline, essay or whatever). I'll look it up tomorrow (today). The GA reviewer suggested I merged some of the entries on this list when I put it past him, but I'm not convinced that that makes things easier on the reader.

On separating notes and references, I've looked at the [[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] template page and can't make any sense of it, I'm afraid.

On the length, the most obvious place for a content fork would be on the Troilus and Cressida story. However, the coverage of that area is less than a third of the article and I think its such an important area for the character that it requires substantial coverage in his main article.

Thanks for the encouraging words too. As someone who occaionally looks at the good article review page, I have noticed that a lot of articles get through with considerably less scrutiny than [{Troilus]] received. --Peter cohen 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On your essay comment, is it just the sentence immediately before the comment that should be dumped, or the previous sentence too?--Peter cohen 13:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Peter. The last two sentences in that paragraph are forms of self reference, which should be avoided. The last sentence is the most noticeably "odd" and out of place of the two; the penultimate sentence could be rephrased to avoid the self reference and restrict itself to describing the methods that trusted sources tend to use when examining the subject. Adrian M. H. 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Adrian. I've now carried out the change. The reference was interesting in otherways and has made me realise I can't say "An example is available here [Some link or other]" as the article may appear in a form where the link won't be instantly pressable. --Peter cohen 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Adrian. I notice things have gone rather quiet on your copy-editing. Is it because you're busy or because I'm not enthusiastuc about all of your suggestions? --Peter cohen 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. Sorry about the absence of any further editing. I have indeed been very busy in real life lately, so my wiki-time has been restricted to frequent but very brief visits and short edits. And I took on a big infobox changeover last week, which didn't help! But it would not have been done at all otherwise. I might be able to look over the rest of the article in a week or so, but I may not get the time to spare, unfortunately. However, based on what I saw in the first third of the article, I doubt if there are very many small changes that need to be made; just a few typos perhaps. Adrian M. H. 13:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Adrian. I might put the article up for GA then without waiting for you, but I don't plan to do so immediately, as my main wiki work until the weekend will be on the synopsis for Die Feen. As the stage after GA is Peer Review, I shall be happy for you to contribute ideas anyway. I suspect that the ideas on separating notes and citations and on the list layout would both be good for discussion at that stage. Thanks anyway for your work so far. --Peter cohen 12:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Troilus now GA. Thanks for your help and feel free to chip in any further comments/changes you feel appropriate.--Peter cohen 12:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Superb! Excellent work on your part, Peter. I made only a small contribution, but I'm glad that I could be of some help. Thanks for the update. Adrian M. H. 13:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a pleasure, and thanks for the congrats. The assessor is encouraging me to push on towards FA. I'll probably be trying at least for A by the end of the year, but shall take a little breather first.--Peter cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome templates

Hey there! Just saw the welcome notice you left here and was wondering where that particular template might be found - it's probably the most comprehensive welcome box I've seen, and I'd like to be able to use it. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Field Commander Site Vandalisation

Dear Adrian,

This individual who is accusing us of putting wrong content on the FC page has been a perpetual trouble-maker on the Field Commander forum and has been banned repeatedly there.

We who run the League of Field Commander are from every continent.

(1) The argument of not having the Field Commander League on the Field Commander page will also hold good for not having the list of World Champions Marathon page or any other game or sport page. This is one individual who is harnessing us repeatedly since the past 3 months.

(2) The League is an Open Championship and any Field Commander player is welcome to join.

(3) It is the only Tournament held for Field Commander players and there is no other such tournament anywhere in the world.

(4) This individual here BlackBeard2k7 is only here to vandalise this page. If you check his history on Wikipedia, he has just done that and nothing else.

(5) He has made personal attacks and libeous statements against me on the FC discussion page.

The owner of the site has been known in the past for making hacking attempts on computers of users he does not like by using the IP address they used to register on his forums with. In addition, he has publicly harrassed other users on the official Sony forum for Field Commander, frequently accusing other players of cheating, threatening their family, using extreme vulgarity toward them and posting personal information about them in public.

(6) You can yourself check the Field Commander Championship site and see for yourself : Field Commander Site

His first argument of removing the League from the Wiki site was that users would get hacked. (Check the history of his edits). When that didn't work with the editors then he has come up with some new warped explaination.

If you have objections after this please be free to ask me on my Talk page before deleting the entries.

Thank you.

Hungrywolf 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC being used to Haress

Please note the RfC brought by BlackBeard2K7 is being done solely to haress.....

RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.

2

You may note that BlackBeard2K7 has been flinging wild accusations, personal attacks & libeling me repeatedly (check his accusations against me on the Discussion pages). He is only here to harass and vandalize the Field Commander site.

You may also note that BlackBeard2K7 had put up a WARNING against the Link of the Field Commander Forum that said :

WARNING: You should take care when joining this non-official web site for Field Commander. The owner of the site (July Derek) has been known in the past for making hacking attempts on computers of users he does not like by using the IP address they used to register on his forums with. In addition, he has publicly harrassed other users on the official Sony forum for Field Commander, frequently accusing other players of cheating, threatening their family, using extreme vulgarity toward them and posting personal information about them in public. He has been banned several times by moderators there and most of the offending threads have since been removed. But should be forewarned.

You may now decide if this individual is here to give constructive criticism or here only to harass and vandal.

Hungrywolf 10:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your reversion, in which you used a bad faith edit summary. The opposing editor raised a genuine grievance per WP:V with regard to the lack of a reliable independent source and was within his rights to remove the contested material once you had failed to produce a reliable source. Fora are not reliable sources. I expect you to put aside anything that BlackBeard2K7 wrote on the talk page in the past and address his current concern, which is genuine. Put his attitude aside for now and address this issue properly. I also expect you to respect the response to the 3O request. I do not tolerate edit wars from people who cannot work through disputes properly, and that goes for both you and BlackBeard2K7. If the two of you continue to revert, I will post it at RFPP and it will just result in full protection. I mentioned to BlackBeard2K7 that mediation should be kept as an option; I strongly recommend that you consider this route. Adrian M. H. 12:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not been reverting his world champion section since August 18. Other people have been removing it after seeing that he keeps re-adding it without resolving the dispute (providing verifiable source of his world championship). And Hungrybeard keeps reverting everyones edits, and lengthening the disputed section. He doesn't seem to care about anyones opinions but his own. And he is making it quite difficult to track this dispute (which should be held on the field commander discussion page) by posting the same messages in the talk pages of everyone involved. I highly recommend that you do put protection on the page, as it is my opinion that Hungrywolf will always re-add the inappropriate section and links back to the page regardless of anyones dispute or opinion. Blackbeard2k7 13:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is not fair as there is a full website related to the League and the Championship. [1] There are over 5000 posts on the Championship League from people all over the globe, from every continent. What further reliable independent source do you want? This is a game, not played by thousands of people but a few dedicated fans. I will put a reference as you want, and will revert your deletion which is totally unfair and based on the rantings of one individual who doesn't own or play the game. Hungrywolf 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fora are not reliable sources. I have provided my third opinion in your dispute with BlackBeard2K7 and my interest in this ends there, quite frankly. If the two of you cannot sort it out, mediation really is your best option. And remember (as I do) that there are more important things in life than a Wikipedia article. Adrian M. H. 12:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the references as you desired. Field Commander is a wonderful game played by a small bunch of enthusiasts. Just because it is a game played not by too many people that shouldn't be cause for deletion of valid entries. Thanks.

I agree that is not a reason for deletion of valid entries. Unfortunately, "Field Commander World Championship" and repetetive links to personal forums are not valid. Blackbeard2k7 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungrywolf 13:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungrywolf

Maybe you need to block Hungrywolf. Check Field Commander he has reverted every one of your edits. I have already responded to his long list of complaints on his own talk page, though he continues to copy/paste it into every talk page of anyone involved in the discussion, making it difficult to keep the dispute in one place. It should be held in the discussion page of the field commander article itself. And to clarify, I do own Field Commander. Blackbeard2k7 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I am aware, however, that he has made five reversions within the last 24 hours, which is enough to file at WP:AN3. If you wish to make a report, you're welcome to do so. Adrian M. H. 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Adrian,

I came accross your name when browsing through the help chats and you seem to have a good idea on how this site works and seems to be a very hepful person. I am new to WIKIPEDIA and wanted to see if anyone can help me understand or direct me to the right place to lean the fundamentals on how to publish a large glossary of terms on here.

Basically my company and also along with other high-tech companies would like to publish a massive list of terms relating to B2B (Business 2 Business) technlogy standards. Do you know how we would go about starting this?

Any guidence would be much appreciated

Thank you Karen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cscokaren (talk • contribs) 14:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Such content would not be acceptable. It would fail articles 2.1, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.9 of WP:NOT and you have a COI angle to consider as well, not to mention the possibility of OR and verifiability issues. I strongly recommend that you do not publish any articles of this nature, because they will be speedily deleted. Adrian M. H. 16:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Threshold mathematics

If you have the time and inclination, your response, as an experienced Wikipedian, to a revised version of Threshold Mathematics... would be appreciated. Someone has already started proposing deletion in 5 days.

Thanks Threshold Pilot 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look later and let you know. I'm glad that you were not put off by the previous deletion. It was justified, but even so, it can feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth. Adrian M. H. 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to be honest. This should be deleted as an insufficiently referenced POV essay. It is not well written and is full of contradictions and admissions of its own unsuitability for inclusion. For example, you undermine its chances somewhat by stating "Being relatively new, there is no readily available fund of sources and references for directly verifying it." That means that it is likely to infringe WP:NEO and WP:V. You then go from apologising for it to defending it as "not pseudo-mathematics" and all that kind of thing is really not appropriate in an encyclopædia. You later contradict yourself by writing "...not a new mathematical system". You would not expect to see an article like this in Encarta or Brittanica, so it should not be here either. It states in WP:V that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", which I mention because it could be applied to this. You must remember that how you view something is not necessarily how others who are not close to it will view it, so the references must be good. Footnotes would help the cause, of course. Adrian M. H. 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the points you highlight about verifiability and pseudo-mathematics were (perhaps too hastily) inserted in response to a further tag proposing deletion on those grounds. But they don't enhance the article in this context where form, style and convention seem to be the governing values. Threshold Pilot 07:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A New contributors' help page Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		As the top contributor to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, you deserve this barnstar. Thank you! Jreferee (Talk) 05:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I really appreciate that. Adrian M. H. 12:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for replying to my userboxes question a while ago...(in May, I think). It really helped! Kukuri and Nike 22:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Act of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thankyou very much for the help you just gave me on how to customise tabs. That will come in very useful indeed. That you did so without being asked personally is the mark of a great person and Wikipedian. Thankyou very much! Happy editing! Lradrama 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pick my brains

Hi Adrian, thanks for the Adoption. I have been an IP editor here and there for years ;) I have started two contributions: Castillo de Salas and New Flame which I am improving as I get more information (and I improve my Wiki Skills). I have recently learned to use ref properly and cite templates (as you can see). Could you have a read and comment in the talk section what you think needs to be done, could be done to improve, I haven't done well? I would take that as a "task" of then I can then learn by doing - probably it would take keep me busy for a couple of weeks, as I use Wiki from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figarema (talk • contribs) 16:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Bit late getting back to you; apologies for that. These articles are quite good efforts in many respects, particularly in terms of factual content, neutrality, formal tone, and sourcing. There are some things that can be improved, some of which I initiated today in the Castillo de Salas article to start you off on the right foot. I created a quickly knocked together lead section out of the first paragraph (this may need some tweaks to fulfill its brief), adjusted some wikilinks (including those for weights and measures), fixed some typing and spelling errors, and tuned some of the syntax here and there. Speaking of weights and measures; this is one of the areas that needs improvement to bring it into line with Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I also "Europeanised" the metric values (from meter to metre) because only the United States uses meter. Manual of Style (spelling) and WP:ENGVAR are tangentially related to this. New Flame has an excess of bold words, most of which are capitalised as well; proper nouns of objects, events and so on can be italicised when necessary. See Manual of Style (titles) and Manual of Style (text formatting). If you're ready to take it on, you could start converting your source refs to footnotes, for which I have a brief intro guide at the top of my second archive. You have a couple of red linked categories; these should be created if you intend to use them, but first read the guidelines about categories at Help:Category and Categorization. Also worth reading is the guidance at Categories for discussion, where unsuitable categories are debated. Well, I think I have covered everything for now. Post again if you want me to explain anything. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

more Figarema's talk page - Figarema 09:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Here is a new opportunity to pick my brains: Tower Mounted Amplifier required a redo as it was up for deletion, so I did it last night. Now there are some suggestions made here but I'm not sure how to: properly reference the "modified" pictures in commons (I would be zoming in, drawing some boxes, cropping, upload again to commons, any other way?). I'm hating reading about style, I'm more hand's on learn as I go, perhaps give me some direction to make the math side more "attractive to the eye"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figarema (talk • contribs) 09:31, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably OK to keep the benefits and drawback arranged separately. You don't need to draw anything on the images; what that editor meant by his suggestion was to crop in if needed and use the caption to indicate the relevant part. I am not sure about the maths sections; I don't think that there is anything seriously wrong with them, but I'm not the best judge of that because I don't edit articles in which maths data is found. Over all, the style looks OK. Adrian M. H. 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

3O request

I understand why you have said as much, but a perusal of the discussion makes it quite obvious that there are only two editors who have been talking for some time, and the quality of the conversation is steadily crashing. Surely this matters as well? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. Four editors have stated opinions in the disagreement, which makes it unsuitable for 3O, which is strictly for bi-party disagreements. Otherwise, a single editor's intervention will serve as the tie-breaker that it is intended to be. It is a simple dispute that you should be able to resolve among yourselves by examining the evidence objectively, but if you cannot reach a solution, then take it to RFC. Adrian M. H. 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway

Thanks for the 3O on DLR - I knew what the outcome would be, but just needed the policies to be pointed out to the user again, by a third party, in the hope that he'd take more notice. However, I doubt it will make a huge difference, so I can see warnings and blockings in his future. *sigh*. Thanks again, _TheIslander 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It might help, now that he has read it from a second editor. If the dispute continues, see if you can get him to meet you in the middle in some way. Adrian M. H. 21:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Meet in the middle? Not likely. You're quite right - I used the word 'ruling' when I really shouldn't have. It was a moment of frustration. This user is like a speeding train - make that a speeding DLR train - who just won't stop. unsure where to report him (as he's breaking a number of different things all at once...) I've placed a notice on the admin board. Thanks for your input ;) _TheIslander 23:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, tonight's repeated reversions under the cloak of an IP make it obvious that he isn't going to play fair. We'll see what comes out of the 3RR report. Adrian M. H. 00:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting a page

Pls help I have create double redirect by mistake I want to delete the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anisa3k (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 August 2007

Admins delete pages, but you do not really need to delete anything to fix a double redirect. Just fix the link at the start of the chain. PS: As it says n the box at the top of my talk page, please sign your coments. Adrian M. H. 10:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links on M.U.L..E.

This is complain for Wikipage on M.U.L.E. [[2]]

BLACKBEARD27K is linking to his personal Website. M.U.L.E. Software Download When that was deleted by the Admins, he is now (indirectly) linking to it via another personal Website.

(1) BLACKBEARD27K is offering, on the above Website, for download a pirated / modified / hacked version of the game M.U.L.E. without the permission of the original authors or publishers ATARI. This is a serious violation of copyright material.

(2) It is in violation of WP:EL as it is SPAM and he is trying to propagate his own web-site Forum here.

(3) Wikipedia is NOT a collection of links.

(4) Also, using common sense, no one should download any executable software from a very unreliable source (as above). Such software may contain trojans and keyloggers which steal your personal information (including Credit Card Nos & passwords)

This individual persists in reverting the deletions. I have deleted the offending link. Please give your opinion regarding this on the M.U.L.E. discussion page.

Thank you !

Hungrywolf 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to step into the continued disputes between you and Blackbeard27k. I was happy to respond to the original 3O request, but as I stated before, my interest in what has become an ongoing needle between the two of you ended at that point. I suggest that you try mediation. Adrian M. H. 11:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[Show] and [hide]

I am not "working" with any templates, as such. I just mean the ones that are at the bottom of a lot of wikipedia articles. Instead of them being hidden, I'd like to see them instead.-- Matthew Edwards 02:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the point of duplicating this comment from VPT? Adrian M. H. 10:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought that's what was supposed to be done so that the person you're talking with knows that I've replied. Am I only supposed to message someone in one talk area? -- Matthew Edwards 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, yes. It is usually unnecessary to duplicate posts and is a bit annoying. Within seconds of any edit occurring on a watched page, that edit will appear on my watchlist, and if you use an expanded watchlist, you see all changes and never miss one. Adrian M. H. 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Could I ask what is the difference between an enhance watchlist and my regular one, and how to enhance mine? -- Matthew Edwards 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to your prefs, select the Watchlist tab and check the first box. For an alternative view (not as good IMO) go to the Recent Changes tab and check the last box. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Newbie in need of a peer review

Greetings,

I am a newbie in need of a peer review. I recently updated a topic page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ruesch

It was flagged as a stub in need of expansion, a cause of death, verification of animal rights activities, and citations. To the best of my ability, I researched facts to meet those flagged requests.

I would appreciate it, if someone could review it to make sure that I have provided sufficient content. Also, in the future, who do I notify that an article has been sufficiently referenced and is ready to be unflagged?

Many thanks ahead of time, Rapunzelina

Rapunzelina 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the right to remove my link?

You told me not to participate in "edit warring" And then you removed my edit without discussing it with me? Ok, so I'll recreate it without discussing it with you and then ask you to discuss it with me before you remove it AGAIN.

The link provided is for one of the biggest organizations practicing Danzan-ryu in the United States.

Professor Henry Okazaki created Danzan-ryu Jujitsu.

Professor Sig Kufferath had Danzan-ryu passed on to him from Professor Henry Okazaki.

Professor John Chow-Hoon was ranked as Judan in Danzan-ryu Jujitsu.

Wally Jay was well recognized as Judan in the art as well.

Professor John Chow-Hoon and Professor Wally Jay were two of the founders of Jujitsu America.

Why would you not want the public to be able to access a good site for obtaining information or resources on a style of martial arts they may be interested in studying? Danzan Ryu User5802 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your reversion of the editor about whom you were complaining because you failed to follow BRD. You are fortunate that I have not removed your post here entirely, because that it is all that it deserves. If you are not willing to abide by behavioural policies, you will receive no help or advice from me or very many other editors. You need to do some reading, and do it now. Adrian M. H. 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And learn to use wikilinks. Adrian M. H. 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Adrian you have refused to give me any reason as to why you reverted my reversion or whatever you'd like to call it. I think you are an unfair editor on wikipedia, restricting information flow on this website and limiting access to resources for the public. Furthermore you have ridiculed the issue at hand by making sarcastic jokes in the middle of these discussions. I will contact further administrators on this matter. Jujitsu America is a major organization for Danzan-ryu just as the International Judo Federation is for Judo. This association should have the same right as the International Judo Federation to have an external link in wikipedia's article about the Martial Art it represents.User5802 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear here and at EAR that I (and the other editor) reverted you. That does not constitute removal of your link, but the undoing of your reversion of the editor who removed your link. Got it? This is a tiny little issue, and you would realise that if you (a) stepped back and took a breath and (b) got to know more about WP. Your badgering at EAR has been incessant, and it has taken up precious editing time that I could have been spending more productively. Please, just drop it and move on - it is only a link. I'm tired and it's very late. Adrian M. H. 00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How to add to an "underpopulated category"

I ran across an "underpopulated category" page, for "jewelry designers". I wanted to add to the page, went to edit this page, but couldn't figure out how to add to it. The "edit this page" view showed only three links and didn't show the list of designers that I wanted to add to. Advice?Kyle Thomas 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Category entries are created in articles, not in the categories. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin King 3O

Thank you for your time. Mark83 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Hope it helps. Adrian M. H. 14:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Motorsport Barnstar

		The Motorsport Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Motorsport Barnstar. You have actively participated in WikiProject Motorsport since its formation, proposed and implemented numerous improvements, and made many contributions to different genres of motorsports. Thank you for your efforts! Royalbroil 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, RoyalBroil! More of the same to follow, time permitting. Adrian M. H. 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect image license

I have expanded the image license info for the illustration I used for my article on Kunichika. --23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Clhowson

You are still using a license tag that claims that is the work of the US government. I don't recall any time when a government commissioned an illustration of a Kabuki actor. Adrian M. H. 14:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Library of Congress says it made the slide of the original. If I am wrong to call it of government origin, how do I fix it? --Clhowson 02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to know where the original came from and where you got it from (URL?). If you need to change the license, just edit the image page and you will see the template. Adrian M. H. 10:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture is now located in WikiCommons. --Clhowson 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox motorsport championship

1. Every championship I have ever seen refers to it the manufacturers championship as 'contructors,' not 'makes.' 2. The current season link is incredibly useful for people wanting to find information on the current season. It does not need to be included in a page if not needed, but it is still nice to have it. 3. I've made these edits because the F1 page recently changed from using the sports league infobox to the motorsport infobox, and I feel these edits needed to be made for continuity. Please don't revert them. Eightball 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That field is for makes, not constructors. If you want a different field, add it, but do not change an existing field name in order to do it. Adrian M. H. 21:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editing an article about my employer

Hello Adrian,

Thanks very much for your comments, which I have considered carefully. I'm afraid, however, that I must forge ahead. It may allay your suspicions to know that I do not work in the Marketing department at SMART, and that my mandate is to create a neutral article that is respectful of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and spirit. The goal is not to use Wikipedia as a promotional medium, but rather to ensure that the article about SMART Board interactive whiteboards is correct, complete, and up to date, as is doubtless the practice with other product-related articles, such as those on Adobe and Microsoft products. I have repeatedly scoured my writing for bias, and have removed all marketing language, references to the product's benefits, and links to sales agents. I count on the Wikipedia community to correct any oversights.

Thanks again, and thanks especially for alerting me to the buttered cat paradox in your list of favourite articles.

Best regards, Veronicac-f 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sounds very positive. You've obviously got the right attitude, and that's what we like. If I can be of assistance, leave me a message again. Adrian M. H. 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Touringcar-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since we are all mature adults who are capable of making decisions based on what works best for the needs of the project, I think I will have to decline your advice. Thanks all the same, but I can do without the extra bureaucracy. Do you approach all editors like that? I'm sure you mean well, but it comes across as a little patronising, to be frank. This stub is part of the Touring car taskforce, which you are welcome to join if you feel like it. I could use the help. It will have a corresponding category when the class categories are built into the code in {{WPMS}}; that will get done when it gets done. I hope that your approach is not a hint that my hard work may be rendered pointless by some procedural heavy-handedness such as deletion, because trying to get WP's motorsport articles into some semblance of order is a very big task and few people actively work on it. Adrian M. H. 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

jann haworth

Hello Adrian. I am puzzled by your comment. My entry clearly establishes the notability of the subject and the page heading is clearly described as JANN HAWORTH, an internationally known artist. What is the problem? I signed the article with my name, RICHARD SEVERY. I don't understand your jargon-laden descriptions of how to "sign" an article. I put my name at the end of it. Isn't that enough? RICHARD SEVERY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severy (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about? Who are you? Refresh my overworked memory, please. Adrian M. H. 01:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Adrian, have you had an opportunity to re-consider the deletion of the page on Jann Haworth? The article lists many sources, she is referenced in 6 books on modern art and was the co-designer of the Beatles Sgt Pepper record cover. There are already 12 references to her in existing Wikipedia articles. Richard Severy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severy (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, which is clear from my user page. So how can I re-consider a deletion??? I assume you are the editor who posted at EA, but failed to respond to my reply, yes? I cannot help you if you do not give me the article's title, as I requested at EA. There is no deletion log entry for Jann Haworth, so what title did you use? Adrian M. H. 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Please make sure that you factor your talk page comments correctly. That does not include making a new section heading for every comment.

Userpage edit

After coming over from the Village pump to check out your monobook.css and .js pages (which are quite interesting, I'm now thinking about making a few changes to my own skin pages), I noticed that your navbar used the old {{click}} workaround template (which gives me nasty blue lines since I force underlines on links). Since it's deprecated, I gave it an ImageMap makeover, which is, in theory, better for useability. I hope you don't mind (feel free to revert), but I figured you might appreciate it. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind that at all, Nihiltres. Technical improvements are fine by me. I took the original method from another user page ages ago, but I would have changed it myself had I known about the link highlighting issue. Thanks very much for your work. Adrian M. H. 22:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re vandalism side note

I did a bit more reading about this in the Wikipedia. I discovered I could do a search. I found that the recent vandalism originated from someone in the company. I guess that could be another approach, though I'd rather not take that route. Brian Pearson 04:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I've decided to try a bit of semi-protection, since the vandal apparently isn't signed in. Brian Pearson 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection didn't work, because it was immediately removed by a bot. It occurred to me to ask another question or two, here.[3]Brian Pearson 14:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

re-direction of debate

Please see my reply to your reply on the village pump. Zantaggerung 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Which subject? Adrian M. H. 11:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For moving my comment, not entirely sure how why I inserted it where I did. John Hayes^talk 12:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Adrian M. H. 12:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

your kind reply

Greetings, Adrian, on the wikipedia site there's a page that has an alphabitized listing of most all of the common acronyms used in online chatting/emails. I'd like to contribute one so that it becomes a part of the other commonly known abbreviations. Thank you very much for your response. Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit729 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Couple of points first; it looks like you may need to read up about wiki-syntax because you keep putting your text in square brackets (which I removed here and at NCH) and secondly, please make sure that you sign your comments. I even make that point in the header on this very page. We appreciate centralised discussion here on WP, so you should have responded at NCH, not here. Since you have not actually provided a link to this article/list that you mention, and I don't have the time or energy to go searching for it through WP's notoriously crappy search system, I will just have to suggest that you be bold and make the edit. If it is not suitable, someone is likely to notice and fix it. Adrian M. H. 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just read your message to me from a few months back. Thanks, you're right. EditorEsquire 01:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Adrian, thanks for fixing the Jubb Yussef (Joseph's Well) problem. Dipping my toe in the Wikipedia universe is exciting but also chastening, one feels stupid all the time. I feel like I need a mentor to avoid even the most basic errors. I actually convinced myself that a signature should be done like this:

~~name~~

because it seemed logical, putting the important information between two characters, if links are done like this

link

Yeesh. It's like learning a language, I guess. I'd like to do what you do, correct things and help people, but will need to get a lot better at it fast. Thanks again,

Andrew 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Andrewfwilson

PS How come (if you don't mind another question) my signature adds Andrewfwilson after (UTC)?

I can't remember what I did or where, but whatever it was, I'm glad I could help. Re your sig: if you use four tildes, there should not be any extraneous bits in the end result, unless you have left something in your custom sig that should not be there. If in any doubt, use the preview button to see the result. Adrian M. H. 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion Request

Will you enter my request for a Wikipedia:Third opinion? IP4240207xx 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome enter it again if you can stay pithy and neutral and not mention names or sign the post with anything other than five tildes. We cannot accept requests that do not meet the guidelines for posting, which are clearly described. Adrian M. H. 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetition of links

Rv unnecessary repetition of links in table

Repetition of links is frequently used. And, I think limit the link in such a table is unkind to the people who does not have knowledge at all, because they come to have to look for link. Is it unnecessary? thanks, --Morio 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is unnecessary. It is hideously ugly to turn almost the entire text blue. Do not forget that a great many internet users have browsers that always underline links; configure your browser to do that and then view a data table that is chock full of repeated links. Then give the table to some users with certain types of cognitive disorder and ask them whether the mass of identical links is helpful or not. And apart from those two very important practical reasons, we should link first instances only, just as we have to do with body text. Adrian M. H. 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I keep present form. thanks, --Morio 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A help

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. First of all, I wish to thank you for replying to the technical page with regards to my question. However, I need more help here. You stated that I must type in about:config in the address bar of Mozilla browser (which I am using). However, when I typed in the above sentence, quite a number of preference names appeared. I am not sure which name to edit so that my browser could display the total number of edits. Do you have any idea which preference name should I edit? Thanks for your help. (Please reply to my talk page). --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Once you're on the about:config page, use the filter at the top to search for timeout and a few entries will come up, with times in seconds. One of them is network.http.keep-alive.timeout, and if you increase this, it might fix your problem. While you're there, you might as well increase the ftp timeout as well. No guarantees, but it's worth trying. Another related possible cause that occurred to me is that, if the PCs on which you have this issue are using the same router, the router's connection timeout may be to blame instead, but this is not always adjustable. Check your manual just in case. Failing that, have a look at the other counters at WP:COUNT. Some of them are a bit quicker. Adrian M. H. 14:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your advise but I still cannot access the page. The current value for network.http.keep-alive.timeout and ftp timeout is 1800 (after increasing them). Do you have any idea what should the value be so that I can access the page? Your help in this matter would be appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That should be more than enough, so at least you have ruled out that possibility. Modem or router perhaps? Not much else that I can suggest. Adrian M. H. 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the problem lies with my router because only my PC is linked to it, no other PCs are using it. But I must add that I am using a wireless modem, so that could be a problem, but I am not too sure. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reference to a wireless modem makes it sound as if you have just confused the two items, because there is not really any such thing as a wireless modem; that would actually be a modem/router. Presumably, all your clients share the same connection? Adrian M. H. 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, none of my clients share the same connection. So, what could the problem be? This has become very frustrating for me because I really love to use this tool to count the number of my edits. I hope you can find a solution for my problem. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Well in that case, there are only two constants left; your ISP and the Wikimedia.de server. The latter seems to be normal (ie, mostly working OK). It occasionally fails to deliver the results when it's busy, but that is not too often and doesn't explain your issue. I don't think ISPs have their own timeouts, but I guess it's possible that some of them might do. I'm flummoxed! Adrian M. H. 14:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you had any success with the other counters? Adrian M. H. 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have success with Kate's Tool and Interiot's tool. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's good; at least some of them work. You miss out on the monthly count from Wannabe Kate (which is very useful) and Interiot's tool is always a few edits behind because it uses a database somewhere, but it's better than nothing. Sorry I couldn't help any more successfully! Adrian M. H. 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, please allow me to give you my values on Mozilla Firefox: accessibility.typeaheadfind.enabletimeout -Value false. accessibility.typeaheadfind.timeout - Value 5000 network.ftp.idleConnectionTimeout - Value 600 network.http.keep-alive.timeout - Value 1800 network.proxy.failover_timeout - Value 1800. Lastly, it takes the page exactly 2 minutes to load before this message appears; The connection was reset. The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading. The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments. If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection. If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web. Also please take note that even if I increase the network.http.keep-alive.timeout and network.ftp.idleConnectionTimeout values, the page's connection will be reset after 2 minutes again and not a minute more. I hope that with this information, you can help me out. Lastly, I would like to know if you are using Mozilla Firefox and what are the values you have set. Thanks for your kind patience and help in this matter. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(reset) My figures are the same as yours. There must be another part of your network or internet connection that is setting a two-minute timeout. As a test, have you tried accessing another prolific editor's contribs through the same counter? Pick anyone from the list at WP:WBE and see if the connection fails. Adrian M. H. 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can access User Tintin1107 edits but I cannot access User SimonP's edits. I can also access your edits as well. So, I really do not know what the problem is. Can I know how long it took you to access my edit counts? Was it more than two minutes or less than that? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your count took exactly 57 seconds! Which is a bit quicker than it was the other day at VPT, I think. Adrian M. H. 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, remarkably, I can access the edit counts of this user as well whose maximum contributions for the month of May was around 9 000 edits (more than the 7000 edits made by me in the month of July). There is also a statement on top of the page which states Too many pages fetched. Terminating. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's mysterious, this. SimonP's count took 1:56 to complete; Tintin1107's took 35 seconds. That last count that you tried took me 1:52. But I'm not at all sure that this is purely down to duration. I'm at a loss, to be honest. I vote for not worrying about it, lest we catch editcountitis! Adrian M. H. 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha!Ha! Please don't be worried about catching editcountitis! Anyway, have you any idea where I can change this two-minute time0out? Moreover, I still cannot access to the Wannabe kate's tool, even after following the link you gave me. This seems to be a very peculiar problem which no one seems to be able to solve. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I'm out of ideas now, really. Your browser timeouts look OK; it might be a timeout somewhere else in the chain (ISP, router, modem, Windows network settings?) Try a post at the computing section of the reference desk, where someone might have an answer. Possibly! Adrian M. H. 14:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

about All-Japan Formula Three

Thanks for your contribution to the article. But, I want to know why All-Japan Formula Three is correct name for the Formula Three Championship of Japan. I know the name is frequentaly used, but I think it is only literal translation from the championship's official name in Japanese (全日本F3選手権). And the official website of the championship is using Japanese Formula 3 Championship as name in English. Is not it correct name? --Morio 15:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. All UK print sources have always used "All-Japan F3" or, less commonly, "All-Japan Formula 3". The use of "Three" rather than "3" is a nod towards our style guides, which prefer to avoid single numerical figures in titles. "Japanese Formula 3 Championship" or any variation thereof would only be appropriate for championships that have predominantly used that title throughout most of their history; examples of which are British Formula Three Championship and German Formula Three Championship (which used that exact title until 2003). We (not just Wikipedia, but the English-speaking world as a whole) often rely on transliterations of local-language proper nouns and titles. When no such transliteration occurs, for whatever reason, an easily accepted alternative term will typically enter into common use. Another such affected article is French Formula Three Championship, for which the creator must have followed what he thought was convention, but failed to take account of the far more important consideration of using proper titles. That championship was actually always known as Formula Three France. Adrian M. H. 16:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I raised this at WT:MOTOR and consensus was quickly reached among three of us. Adrian M. H. 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I understood. thanks, --Morio 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Adrian M. H. 21:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Request for Feedback

I see your point, but the uses of the words Croydon and London is hard to avoid in this article (named London Borough of Croydon). Pafcool2 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard at all; it just takes a bit more care and imagination. Was there any point to placing this here, rather than at RFF? Adrian M. H. 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

IRL cite flag?

Okay, what needs to be cited? There are lots of references, and much of the material is widely reported. I know there is always a fine balance in citing sources, but what specifically would you like to see cited? Twohlford 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that it was self evident. There are a mere six footnotes (which need formatting, incidentally) and entire paragraphs that remain uncited. There are a small number of embedded URLs as well, but this is not a satisfactorily informative method of citation. There are no references to printed sources, either. Every article should be verified to GA standard, regardless of whether the other aspects are at that level. I'm on Jimbo's side on that issue. Adrian M. H. 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

John Tory and Dalton McGuinty

could you help me rephrasing it in a away that it should be neutral? because the UN decision is a fact not a personal opinion it should be written that Dalton McGuinty chose not to obey while john Tory did want to obey the UN decision. --Ntb613 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. It is not a suitable addition, even with a rewrite. Adrian M. H. 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain and not just say no? isn't it a fact? --Ntb613 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not verifiable and it's an opinion. You should follow Ariel's suggestion at EAR and read the pages to which she linked. Adrian M. H. 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

what is not werifiable the UN decision? it says on UN website??? --Ntb613 13:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You really have not grasped this, have you? You need to cite reliable sources for the entire content, not just a UN decision. Go and re-read the diff to which Ariel linked at EAR; you did not provide any citations. But you are just picking at one of its deficiencies; the other cannot even hope to be remedied, given how contrary it is to the essence of WP. I don't why you have decided to bother me with this. Adrian M. H. 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect/dab question

Sorry about the edit conflict! (I type faster, neener neener ~*Grin*~ ) Ariel♥Gold 17:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Nice to see you at EA, Ariel. Adrian M. H. 17:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian, I enjoy it, it is so much easier to respond than the Help desk (soo many ECs there, and it is such a huge page sometimes it hangs my browser up lol), and the questions seem to be from more experienced editors, so it is quite enjoyable. I too enjoy seeing you around, as I haven't had much of a chance to say hi lately. I hope you're having a great weekend! Ariel♥Gold 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I almost always have nice weekends! I gave up on the HD long ago for just that reason; far too hectic and rather messy. Usually the same questions, usually unsigned! And lots of people from foreign countries requesting scholarships to WP!! (I mean, what is that about?) VP and EA are much more interesting and involving. Adrian M. H. 17:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

True, true. I've learned a whole lot from you just from watching you handle things at EA and VP (I'm not "techy" enough to feel I can get involved at VP lol), but I've found that many of the EAR questions I can answer pretty easily, and usually already have a little note written up for in my cheatsheet I use, as well, lol. And, yeah, none of the advertisement spam, homework help, and other silliness seems to make its way to EA so that's nice, hee hee. Well, I'm off to bed, you have a great Saturday night! Ariel♥Gold 17:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Although granted, sometimes issues arise at EAR that I'm not completely sure about, lol. Check the latest, the request is that we give the person an editor's IP address. I've said that we cannot do this, but he asks for just the first few numbers if privacy is an issue, so I figured I'd have you pop over to double check my answer just in case, and I did say I'd ask. (I still doubt it can be done, I don't think a Checkuser request would be approved for such an issue as one editor vandalizing an article.) Ariel♥Gold 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right; it's not the sort of thing that warrants a checkuser request. I'll confirm that in my reply. Adrian M. H. 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ewww

Is this just the weirdest thing you've ever read here? I think that's got to be at the top of my list, in over two years, lol. (P.S. Awesome response about the lie detector, lmao) Ariel♥Gold 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! It was a struggle to write a serious straight-faced answer, to be honest! Methinks he has been reading stories like this one. Adrian M. H. 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

~*Snicker*~ I was impressed with your reply, honestly. I sat there thinking about it and finally decided I'd just "pass" on answering that one, lol. Excellent job, seriously. Ariel♥Gold 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Ariel! Adrian M. H. 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not "stalking you" really I'm not! lol. But I do have EAR on my watchlist, and saw this, and User:CDP Anniston Alabama. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the name is the same as the training center he's put up on his userpage. This is blatant advertisement, it looks like to me. That seems like a case for a nice {{db-spam}} tag, and I've tagged several userpages with similar content before, all have been deleted. But to top all this off, it is also a blatant copy/paste from this .pdf document, so really I think, should be deleted immediately. Am I off base? Ariel♥Gold 17:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On the mark, I think. I was going to ProD it soon, since he hasn't edited since then. Sometimes, I just go ahead and blank the worst offenders, though this wasn't one of them, but now that you have highlighted a copyvio issue, I think we should either blank it or put a speedy nom on there. Well spotted. Adrian M. H. 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it isn't a talk page, I'd get it deleted. (You could do it if you wanted to, there's no issue with you following the copyright policy, regardless of previous contact with the editor). I'd also probably consider a soft block on the username since it is obviously promotional (exact name of the organization/training center he's advertising), and he used the name for a promotional purpose. But that's your call, of course. Ariel♥Gold 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'll stick a tag on it later. If you want to opt for a soft block, you could do so. I'm not sure whether it's really needed in this case, but I'll leave that one up to you. Adrian M. H. 18:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not an admin, dear, lol. I figured you could just nuke the page, and I sort of look at these kinds of things as normally these are editors that come to dump their info, then they don't return. Unless he starts editing again to promote things, a block isn't usually worth bothering with. Many of these types of editors don't return. I'll tag the page with a CSD though, so that'll get taken care of at least, because that is a copyvio. Actually, it seems the document is either endorsed by, or published by the DHS (Dept of Homeland Security), so I'm not sure that a copyright applies. I didn't see the DHS item at first, but it seems to me that would put it in the public domain? I tagged it for advertisement, so either way, it still wasn't appropriate. Ariel♥Gold 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant that you could request a soft block if you wanted to do so, since you raised the idea. I'd tend to agree with your latest comment that it is probably not worth doing, though. Not sure about public domain; we don't really have that in UK copyright law, that I know of. I'm only really familiar with intellectual property rights. Adrian M. H. 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

<-- Ahhh, nah, no reason to UAA it, I only use UAA for really heinous issues, lol. Sorry I misunderstood you, :) And yeah, we have this law that says basically that stuff the government publishes is copyright free, and so if that document were published originally by the DHS it would fall into that public domain thing, but I can't be sure who published it since it is an HTML version of a pdf, and I don't want to download the original, lol. No biggie! Okay I'm done bugging you for the day, I promise! Ariel♥Gold 18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

07' Macau Grand Prix

Hey Adrian - Do you have the Autosport where they have the entry list for this year's Macau Grand Prix. I was hoping of creating an article on it but I can't seem to find (or remember) the issue it from from. I believe it was in mid-October, please can you help? Cheers. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Skully! How's things? Unfortnuately, I stopped my subscription to Autosport back in the Spring, and I haven't bought more than a few issues since. The editorial quality was going downhill. I don't have anything at all about Macau. If I see anything relevant online, I'll let you know. Adrian M. H. 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, cheers. I'll keep looking through my "Autosport archive" but I think my mum (or my dad) might've put it in the paper recycling bin by mistake - and guess what day it is today? You can probably guess... ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL - That happens a lot in my house. Adrian M. H. 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Where to patrol for articles that merit CSD

I have been a vandal patroller for months. Now I am thinking of patrolling for articles that should be speedily removed. I know where to hunt for vandalism, e.g. Recent changes. I could hunt in New pages for CSD but are there other good ways to find candidates for deletion? Are there categories, e.g. unreferenced articles that are good hunting grounds? Sbowers3 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done any new page patrolling lately, but that was always my main method for SD noms. However there are some useful categories and special pages that can serve to show up (with a bit of sifting) articles that are SD or AFD candidates. Fewestrevisions, Deadendpages, Lonelypages, Uncategorizedpages, and some of the sub-categories of the Wikipedia backlog. And if you haven't already, I really recommend that you install something like Twinkle to make the tagging process much quicker and easier, particularly for AFD (just one click!). Good hunting! Adrian M. H. 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start patrolling soon. Sbowers3 02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Prostate Massage

Ok, I tried discussion a year ago and no response... My issue is that the entire "Prostate Massage" page reads like a commercial for the Aneros massager brand product. Now I see there is another whole page dedicated to the "Fleshlight" brand massager. I understand these pages are informative, but they also seem to be commercials. What am I missing, or can I also create an informative page for my revolutionary designed external prostate massager called the Prostate Cradle?

Thank you, Surfclaw 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please keep discussion centralised by commenting only at EA. Note that I provided the alternative option of being bold and bringing the entire article up to the required referenced and neutral standard. Adrian M. H. 00:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What is E A?

Thank you Surfclaw 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You posted there earlier.... Adrian M. H. 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You are fast! You suggested I "bring the entire article up to current standards". Do you mean delete the commercial elements? Regarding E A -- I still don't know where "there" is... With Thanks! Surfclaw 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please make sure that you use discussion pages correctly? That means indenting subsequent comments and not adding new section titles for the same discussion. I shouldn't have to refactor them. EA = Editor Assistance, as in WP:EA. Check your contribs and you will see it listed. With regard to the article; you should remove all trace of advertorial and product mentions (if the products themselves were noteworthy, they would have their own articles), neutralise the language, and provide references for all content. Use footnotes; add {{fact}} tags (with dates) for unreferenced content that should be ref'd.... etc. The usual cleanup operation with which every editor is sadly all too familiar. See the links on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Remembrance Day

EyeSerene^TALK 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:EAR

Hi Adrian, I could use your input on an issue posted that I replied (In typical ArielVerbosity fashion) to, here, my main concern is the ongoing 3RR violations, edit warring, and what appears to be a complete lack of willingness to discuss the issues, as evidenced by a completely empty article talk page. I'm actually thinking that semi-protecting the page, or even full protection may be a good idea, to get these issues worked out on the talk page and encourage the editors to discuss, rather than revert constantly. If you take a look at the history of the article, this has been going on for weeks, constant reverting without explanation, constant adding back in of the same non-neutral information, and while I do think the editor requesting assistance has good intentions, I think that a lack of communication and lack of knowledge of policy is in play here. I could be wrong, of course, and it is fine if I am, but I'd really appreciate your input! Ariel♥Gold 06:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner, Ariel, but I have been away from WP for the last three days. Call it a mix of wiki-stress and wiki-boredom combined with plenty of other things to do! I probably won't be seen at EAR for at least a few days yet; it is getting a bit unmanageable, so I need a break from it. Adrian M. H. 12:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Adrian! You do what you have to, and take care of yourself. Better than getting so burned out you quit completely, which I personally would be very sad if that were to happen. So take a break, limit the time, whatever you need. There is this thing some people speak of, called "Real life", I've heard it is a good thing to take part in, when one is feeling overwhelmed. I hope you have one you can fall back on! :o) Ariel♥Gold 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Real life® It has that annoying habit of limiting my "me" time! If you need to get in touch at all, I will be around to reply to messages. Adrian M. H. 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thread at EAR

Is the issue now resolved, or would you like further help? We will need to archive the thread soon, but I don't want to do that prematurely. Adrian M. H. 00:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, yes. Since other editors took up the case (mostly User:Collectonian) I have stepped back from it. However I should point out that the user in question, User:Lulu Margarida is apparently continuing with their disruptive behaviour, now adding sock/meatpuppetry and incivility to their rap sheet, and having been blocked twice since I submitted the report. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Matticus. I'll keep an eye on it for a little while and not close the thread yet. Adrian M. H. 10:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From talk:Eucharist

Wonderful-a straight answer. Thank you, adrian. By citation, I read you to say in instances where there is not consensus reached among editors, and the information is not common knowledge, reference is necessary to a source other than the editor's interpretation of the Primary source, but you could mean something else.

Either citation like 1) "God hates the world (see John 3:16)"

or 2) "God hates the world (See Nietzsche, Friedrich, On John 3:16 Der Froelichen Wissenschaft, 1872)

1) seems like OR to me Eschoir (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Userspace Edited" Banner

Sorry if that banner annoyed you. Personally, I'm surprised that someone didn't change it sooner! I didn't think about not using the banner and just making it nowiki, and I will consider it next time, so in a way, thanks, and again, sorry. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no worries! It had been sat there at VP for what seemed like ages and, of course, inherited the style that I apply to the usermessage class, so I was doing a momentary double-take each time! Adrian M. H. 01:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nom consideration

Well, I was coming here to ask you if you wanted to go up for RfA, but I'm unsure now that I see you're not editing regularly. I don't know if this is temporary or permanent, but when you are more regular, maybe you'll think about it. Cheers, J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the consideration J-stan – I appreciate it. However, as I say on my user page, I do not wish to participate in the current admin system. Moreover, I feel unsure at this time whether I wish to participate in Wikipedia at all any longer. I feel rather disillusioned with the concept of contributing, to be honest, and feel as if it makes no difference whether I am here or not. Maybe that will change for the better in the coming months. Adrian M. H. 22:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a Wikicookie!

Wow, I don't know where that feeling is coming from. Frankly, I am amazed and shocked. I think you've been a great solid contributor who had made a huge difference. Your contributions to motorsport articles and WikiProject Motorsport have been tremendous. I have missed you! You helped make 2 Good Articles! You got me beat by 1 Good Article, and I became an admin last November. I always thought of you as admin material from Day 1. You shouldn't run for admin if you're not interested or disillusioned, of course. If you found XfD discussions tiring and frustrating like I did, then the answer may be to stop contributing there. My wikistress went WAY down when I concentrated on improving existing and starting new articles instead of debating things.

I give you a Wikicookie in the hope that you will come back some day to eat it. Royalbroil 04:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Royalbroil, thank you very much for those compliments! That's heartwarming, actually, to know that my contributions have made a difference. I have lately thought "oh, what's the point?" and I needed a complete break from it. WP:EAR was getting me down, so I reluctantly had to give up contributing to that, and I gave up on AFD as a flawed system a long time ago. I see so much crap that is not eligible for deletion but cannot readily be improved, and that really depresses me. Working hard on the portal only to see it fail its FP nom over things that are just fine as they are was the clincher for me.

But after six weeks away, I'm going to come back and start editing again, so you'll see me around at WP:MOTOR once more. I very much doubt that I will wish to become an admin anytime soon, though; not unless it's easier to fix the problems from within. It's impossible to change anything for the better around here. Adrian M. H. 15:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually end up doing my own thing when it comes to adding content. The effect is that is no stress. I don't like drama and ignorance is bliss. I let other people decide things like that except if I have a strong opinion. My life will go on no matter what is decided in here. If an article goes away or a category is renamed - so what? I have mainly been writing articles about major racers who never had an article. I keep finding these people, believe it or not, at flickr. I end up asking someone to consider licensing a photograph in Creative Commons for some article that a photographer took. I occasionally look at their other photographs and discover that they took all kinds of photos in a genre of racing that has little coverage in Wikipedia. That gives me the impetus to write an article for that person and a whole bunch of other people in that genre. Otherwise I write an article on a Hall of Fame, and write an article on a major racer who was missed up to that point. I see no end in sight with the possible articles on things that other contributors don't know much about. There are very few articles on the Top 50 drag racers of all-time from the U.S. There are very few articles on off-road racers either, even though every event in the series are nationally televised (tape delayed) in the U.S. Are there things like these in your part of the world that should be written? Does that type of contributing appeal to you? At any rate, it's good to hear from you. Royalbroil 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the kind of article that I like; one that fills a hole that no-one else has thought to fill (or at least got around to filling). But I often really struggle to find the material that it requires. Back in October/November, I started looking over the touring car articles and found a lot that needed rewriting; I cleaned up and expanded two or three of them, but I had to confine the content to what could be extracted from online data. Strictly speaking, they still don't meet WP:N, which bothers me, but they are notable by their achievements and maybe some good material will appear from some place. There are many others that I can't improve at this time. And it's good to hear from you, also. Adrian M. H. 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

U R welcome

You're welcome Adrian. I will keep my antenna up for the unidentified tropical vine and post you an i.d. when something turns up. Glad to help anytime, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Flower hunt #7

Hi again - this time good news re pic #7 which I have to say eclipses other pics of this plant and is a Thunbergia mysorensis or Clock Vine from subtropical and tropical India, attractive to hummingbirds. Sweet. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Julia! Your input, together with some help from fellow members of a photography forum, has got all except one now. I can't identify #9 [4] with the bright pink stems. Adrian M. H. 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder/request/idea/memo/suggestion

Hello! I suppose you barely remember me... Well, it has been some time, has it not? As you might guess, I am here on SBS business. Alas, I have to be a little pressing at times, no matter how much I might hate myself for it. The problem is that participation in WikiProjects is on a purely voluntary basis, so it is both highly impolite and extremely insensitive for me to be taking such steps, but... Well, call me eccentric and it's settled (I hope).

To the subject: as always, there is a severe activity deficiency in the project—too much to do, and nobody to do it. I am not as much concerned about the editing progress, as this is supposed to be done by all editors. No, I am more worried about the guidelines and the templates, where there are still many things to be taken care of, numerous holes to be closed, countless loose ends to be tied up, immeasurable improvements to be made. In four words: decisions to be made. All I am asking for is a helping hand once in a while: add the SBS page to your watchlist (if you have not done so until now), and vote in the polls; as the majority of the proposals are rather uncontroversial, polls usually suffice for business to move on. If, of course, there is the slightest disagreement (succession boxes are rather straightforward, after all), more discussion can take place, until consensus is reached in the good old Wikipedia way. The fact is that the entire process will not take up more than a few minutes of your valuable time in any given day—and it is a rare event indeed to see more than two or three proposals submitted in a week. Actually, that speed would be ideal, as things right now move at much slower rates.

If we are to note any progress, we need participation. If you are interested enough to have signed up, I am not asking for much, am I? After all, aren't we all here because we are trying to make a difference? Waltham, The Duke of 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Ever heard of hard spaces? They are required in many cases by the Manual of Style, but most editors seem to ignore them entirely. There is an initiative attempting to change this situation; click here if you are interested. – Waltham

For the foreseeable future, my editing will continue to be limited. I'm confining my participation to Wikiproject:Motorsport and its directly related areas and I want to keep it that way for now. I would struggle to get excited about whether editors use hard spaces; I used to worry about such things but had to quit or leave WP altogether. Adrian M. H. 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just make sure not to forget about us when you do have time. And keep watching your blood pressure at regular intervals. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 22:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right

Man, I sorry but i just start and i want to expand the racing career of several drivers and don't look too much on the rules and the gramar.

Oh, by the way, I just create the page for Racing Engineering and I would like your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelpi (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure that you sign comments on talk pages; along with edit summaries, signing comments is another important thing that editors are expected to do. I have to be honest and point out that your level of English may not be quite at where it really needs to be in order to edit the English Wikipedia effectively; that is something that you will need to work on, I think. Do you contribute to the Portuguese Wikipedia as well? So far, all your edits have needed to be amended in some way, which makes extra work for other editors. You will need to get to grips with all the major policies, guidelines, and style manuals; they are very important to the running of the encyclopædia and well-prepared editors always write good articles that need little or no attention from others. Your first attempt at Racing Engineering showed that you had not done any preparatory reading before creating the article. Adrian M. H. 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOTOR spam box

I added the spamming box to my userpage, but your code didn't work. I just added it as an image. See the bottom of my userpage. You have my permission to mess with my userpage if you want to play with it. Royalbroil 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a go and it seems fine now. Let me know if it causes any issues. Cheers, Royalbroil. Adrian M. H. 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Motorsports Portal

Alan Kulwicki just passed as a Good Article. There's finally a GA on a NASCAR driver. Can it be added to the Motorsports Portal? There is no free use image of his (yet!), but there is an image of his driver's and owner's championship trophies. Royalbroil 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Bung it straight in or drop me another message if you'd like me to add it. Adrian M. H. 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't because I didn't know how the portal works. Should it replace another (which one?) or should it be a new one? Here's what I did for the Wisconsin portal. Royalbroil 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We can add it as a new page, using the same code as existing sub-pages, with a new number in the title, and then just update the corresponding figure (number of pages) in the relevant part of the code on the main page. I'll create the page shortly and make the necessary edit to the main page code. Adrian M. H. 23:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's done, pretty much. It's at Portal:Motorsport/Selected biography/10. It's a bit shorter than most of the other selected bio snippets, so if you are up for selecting and adding a few more bits of important info to the pasted lede section, that would be useful. I have provisionally added a pic of one of his cars. Adrian M. H. 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jamie Hamilton (motorcycle racer)

I helped get the article restored in an AFD review. Would you help wikify the article? Royalbroil 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, RoyalBroil. I have been away for a long time. Sorry for not replying sooner. If it still needs any input, I'll be happy to contribute if I can. Adrian M. H. 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion

Hi Adrian,

I'm hoping you can help with an opinion on something. There's a series of pages that contain what I believe to be pretty blatant advertising for a book and promotion for an Author. Any changes that I, or others, have been made to edit the book out of the text have been reversed - generally with a stinging comment. I've tried pointing out WP:SOAP and in an attempt to sort it out I've written to the person who's reversing the edits but to date I've had no response.

This is the history of the page where the edit reversals have been happening: [5]. This is the note I wrote to the person who's reversing the edits. Included in there is a link to the other pages where the book is featured: [6]

I may be wrong. Maybe it isn't advertising - maybe it should stay. If you have a moment, I'd be interested in your view. Thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I gave up offering "3O"s some time ago. Adrian M. H. 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

British Formula Three Championship

You recently changed back some edits I had made to this article, specifically relating to the model years of the chassis used in each class. With respect, I believe I am correct. I agree that for some time these have operated in 3-year cycles, but assure you that this year (2008) is the first year of the current cycle. Consequently, the National Class is for car cars of the previous cycle, namely 2005 to 2007 inclusive. I sit on the FIA Single Seater Technical Working Group and have only missed one meeting in the last 20 years of British F3, so am comfortable with the accuracy of the information I changed. 82.71.62.44 (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very civil attitude, which most anon editors don't demonstrate when they get RVd. But you may want to take a look at WP:OR and WP:RS. You have to cite your sources to a real good standard if you want to change the accepted status quo and trying to claim expertise in an effort to prove your point isn't going to be taken positively by experienced editors. Who is to say that you are who you claim to be? For what it's worth, your assertion doesn't gel with printed press sources, so even if you're correct, we have to take verifiability ahead of truth unless/until someone can satisfactorily show otherwise. Just claiming that the sky is blue may be right, but it doesn't count. Apologies for the late response, but I don't edit much these days. Adrian M. H. 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)