User talk:Hannibalormaybejustrex/Archive 1

Editing under other names?

Have you used a different name to edit this encyclopedia in the past, or do you still use another name? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a unique user account. I have made some minor edits in the past as an IP address mind. Catchpole 18:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that the only interaction you have on AFD involves voting delete on school-related articles? Silensor 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons actually. Firstly I do not see any use in school articles being in an encylopedia. Secondly when I was first stumbling around the site I wandered across something akin to ballot box stuffing by those who want to keep schools and so thought providing a counterweight may be useful. I may prove to be mistaken on this point. Thirdly it's an interesting diversion during my lunch hour. Catchpole 22:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In that case, I am glad you now have something positive to do during your lunch hour. Welcome to Wikipedia. Silensor 09:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Burruchaga

HI there, I saw your changes to article Jorge Burruchaga, and I would like to ask to some references on the ban. I will revert your edit until we don't have those references to quote. Thanks, and good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I found several articles mentioning the scandal and Burruchaga's implication, but non with the actual ban in English. I added some online references (on the ban in French), but would like to ask you to add the title of the article of the When Saturday Comes reference. Thanks, Mariano(t/c) 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unimportant information

Please do not add information that doesn't have any value to an article as you did here. --mboverload @ 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing context to your edit, however, I fail to see how some tabloid's award is notable. --mboverload @ 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clash POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Strummer#POV

Would be my view... Me677 18:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Camacho

Look, the first time around I forgot to add the reason to the prod. So why are you considering this a second prod? What's with the wikilawyering? Pascal.Tesson 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being blunt but why are you being so dense about this. It was a good faith mistake on my part. There is no need to be so darn legalistic about it... Pascal.Tesson 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krang (band)

I've decided to list the article for deletion. Just so you know, about.com is a mirror, so what you were looking at is an old version of the Music of the Netherlands article here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed Manuel as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Andersson

I prodded this article, but feel free to move it if he did anything else of note in athletics. Catchpole 07:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deprodded it, but feel free to take it to AfD if you feel Olympic competition is not sufficiently notable. -- Jonel | Speak 11:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unpronounceable brewery

Re: [1], in what way does your deprod address WP:CORP compliance? Or is this all a joke to you? - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiseen

This article is up for deletion. I thought maybe you could help provide more links to media coverage, tour info, etc.? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Somali Front

Just to let you know I've nominated this article for deletion. You can contribute your veiws at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_15#United-SF AndrewRT - Talk 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROFTEST

Re [2], yeah, it's not policy - nor does it have to be for the prod to be valid! Do you actually believe he's notable, have multiple non-trivial works about this guy, or believe the current article is good for the encyclopedia? Besides, PROFTEST did not revoke WP:BIO, which is ~~policy~~ a guideline, PROFTEST is a harder standard for deletion to meet than core WP:BIO! So if I believe he fails BIO and choose to examine him under PROFTEST, which he makes no assertion of meeting - for this I am deprodded? I think you need to think more carefully about relating to your peers here on WP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes

Thanks for helping out with articles about athletes! We have a neat template which produces the IAAF link, see for instance my edit to Kristof Beyens. Regards, Punkmorten 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're becoming quite good at this. Thanks for the good work. Punkmorten 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, cheers for the advice. Catchpole 10:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

What's so bad about it?

I even made it shorter.

-- Nishkid64 ^Talk 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy? --Nishkid64 15:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

My orders from administrators is to put prod . User:KRBN

Redirect problem

Solved, see RfD page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right in Two

The orignal WP:NOT a crystal ball proposal was because the original article had claimed that RIT was rumored to be the third single from 10,000 Days. I still think the page is skeletal and useless, so I'm going to nominate it for deletion at AfD. King Bee 00:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

You seem to be closing AfDs - I'd like to let you know that that should only be done by a sysop, and i'm going to revert the edits. thanks, ST47Talk 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

was not aware of that, I apologize :( ST47Talk 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that non-sysops can close consensus keep AfDs, but you may want to be careful about the timing, as they're supposed to run 5 days. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am endeavouring to only close AfDs that are nearing the 5 day limit that have not garnered any delete votes and at least 3 keeps from established editors. Catchpole 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine, but keep the 5 day window according to the deletion policies and process in mind. If it's "nearing" the 5 day limit, it can't hurt to let it sit a few more hours to allow it to complete properly. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.129.36.199

Bingo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Rafalowicz&diff=74330808&oldid=74328885

I gave him a 3RR warning, but, like I said, I'm leaving it up to you. Why exactly is this image in dispute, anyway? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's possibly jealously from some of his peers that he has a wikipedia article due to his role in Shine. Catchpole 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Price (publisher)

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. Thanks. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for the 54th United Kingdom Parliament

Hey - I know you prodded the above article but it's gone for AfD now.. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Election

Thanks for making the change to Scottish Parliament election, 2007- I think we're right, and I hope others will agree. --Slackbuie 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your input on a major project I'm about to start

Catchpole, I noticed that you spend a good deal of time, like I do, editing less-well known golfer and golf tournament pages. I'm about to start a major project- A list of Defunct PGA Tournaments- and would like your input. Please see my User page near the bottom for the concepts I have initially proposed.--Hokeman 10:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sources go, I live in Florida about an hours drive from the Hall of Fame in St. Augustine. As big as that complex is, one would imagine that they have a pretty well-stocked bookstore there. I was thinking about checking there to start. If you know of a good source(s), I'm all ears. I noticed that some of the other golf editors - you, Tewapack, Dakpowers, Osomec - do a good job of find data on some of the lesser-known pro golfers.--Hokeman 21:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll make a mental note of using the European Tour official site as a resource. Like you, I use the PGA Tour's website and what I find in a Google search. I also use golfstats from golfonline.com sometimes. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.--Hokeman 02:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin intervention against vandalism

Hi, thanks for your report, it is best to report only users who have had a final warning and continued to vandalise. Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 21:34 1 October 2006 (GMT).

"Am I missing something" No, maybe I was. I'm reluctant to block when the user has been warned for their last act, so I missed the earlier "blatent". Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:51 1 October 2006 (GMT).

Southern Farm Bureau Change

Thanks for the udpate. I was just copying the info from the PGA_Tour#2006_Schedule main article. It looks like that was added prematurely. 12:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Crunch 12:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder

I have to admit, I'd totally forgotten about that. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and cleaned it up a bit. It could still use some work, but at least this is something to build from. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope ^Talk 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I don't really know much about chess in Jamaica, so unless you mention it in the discussion I can't really take that into consideration. If you'd like to take this to WP:DRV that's probably the best option... unclosing and relisting the AfD at this point seems like a bad idea. --W.marsh 20:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for your patience. --W.marsh 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Categories

Hi, I've noticed you've tagged a couple of articles as stubs. Just to let you know, its better to use a specific stub category. Thanks, Jeodesic 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steadman

I noticed you PROD'd some albums by the band Steadman. I de-prod'd them, as albums by notable bands are typically notable. If you feel the band is not notable, you should take it to WP:AFD and group nominate the album articles with the band article. Wickethewok 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused on to why you deleted and moved the Steadman albums, Catchpole. Could you please point me to where it states that albums must chart (/be notable) in order for them to have their own page? And I also agree that this should be group nominated as Wickethewok stated above. --MightyGiant 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Polkingharn

Being mentioned in some songs doesn't make him notable, it's the same reason Eminenm's daughter had her article delete, even though she's actually appeared in some of his videos and sung on one of his songs. TJ Spyke 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GCSE

"GCSEs weren't introduced until the 1980s" - I took mine in the 70s... Check it out. --212.241.67.98 14:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edilberto Villar

Hi, Whats the go with deleting my prod on Edilberto Villar after 6 days and no objections? The article contains no biographical information about Edilberto Villar and its unlikely to get any better. Do you intend to put the work into improving the article? --Dave 15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your participation, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 17:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Sally

Hello, Catchpole -- I'm part of the Wikification Drive and as part of this project I found the article on Zak Sally, which you so kindly tagged in early September as needing wikification. I've done my best to wikify it, and expanded it a little as well as added references. I thought I'd let you know in case you'd like to take a look. Thanks, Emmegan 15:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Andrew Stephenson

Please see [3]. Thank you. BenBurch 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bradbourn MEP

I have emailed who you said to email giving permission for this data to be used.

Gary and Phil Neville

No problem with the semi-protect. I've handed out warnings to the ones who've moved to the Philip Neville article and I'll keep an eye on it. I'll semi-protect that one too if it continues. Gwernol 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

You voted Keep at the article's AfD. You may wish to make your voice heard at its deletion review. Thank you. -- Avi 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugrats episodes - prod

The reason why I applied the prod template to the Rugrats episodes is because they are not notable; i.e. non-encyclopaedic, and consist of an episode synopsis and nothing else - not merely because they are stubs. In fact, the reason that they are stubs is that nothing else can really be said about them. The only notable episode is All Growed Up, because it ties into the spin-off series. I intend to bring this matter to a full AfD debate. CNash 11:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead

This edit summary made me laugh out loud. You were right of course. --SandyDancer 23:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gotti Agnello

I'm going to assume that this was in error? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thats what I was hoping, happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry McLeish

See reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Henry_McLeish. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isidoro Acevedo‎

You removed the prod stating that importance was met. How does this person even remotely meet the criteria for WP:BIO? IrishGuy ^talk 19:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen F.C.

I understand the change from 'last half' to 'last quarter', as both are literally true. My thinking was that the period from 1980 to 1986 was exceptional, and represented overachievement against the norm. Prior to 1950, the club won nothing. Since 1950, the club averaged two to three trophies per decade; the 10 in the 1980s is not representative. Therefore the comparison was made with what a club of Aberdeen's size might be expected to achieve, rather than what was (over-)achieved in one particular period. Both statements are, of course, true. I prefer my original, but I won't revert it if you can convince me otherwise. Watty1962 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've put it back. Watty1962 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Jones

I don't think Man Utd really comes into this. If you're so worried about POV in the article why not edit it? At least leave a note on the talk page explaining why the article is NPOV with a slightly more coherent rationale than the one expressed in your edit summary. Because otherwise editors might check it over, decide it isn't a problem and quite legitimately remove the tag. Sure its been written by fans but its not the hagiography that some articles are. Deizio talk 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicer1

This user is attempting to delete other articles similar to Men Only - see here - I think he is using an anon IP to do the same - worth watching out for. --SandyDancer 21:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Dai Davies (politician). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about this. See my reply to you at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Dai_Davies_.28politician.29, and my comment at Talk:Dai Davies (politician)#Independent_article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Davies (politician) now semi-protected. See Talk:Dai Davies (politician)#Semi-protected. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser policy

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the support. While I appreciate the hard work the checkusers go through, I find it extremely unnerving that this has become a process that is allowed to bypass all other levels of community consideration in cases of indefinite blocks of existing users (even long-standing, well-meaning ones). User:Tennis expert, even after excluding the expected levels of emotion in being the involved user, has some good points about being tried and sentenced without even having a voice. I don't see any on-wiki consideration of this particular case, so it really is quite a mystery where it was even first considered that his account may be a sock. In just a few days of clearing out backlogs at CAT:RFU, I have seen several checkuser-mandated blocks that seem less than clear-cut. Any ideas you have regarding this process would be helpful to me, as I am now very interested in figuring this out and working out the kinks. -- Renesis (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Macedonia (terminology)

The template has been "fixed". Unfortunately it is vandalised again every half-hour or so (by a different user each time, so blocking users isn't really helping). We can't just keep it redirected all day while it's on the main page. If you're still seeing the vandalism, it's because your browser has cached the vandalised version; refresh the page and/or Bypass your cache – Gurch 12:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (terminology)

Dude, what are you doing... don't redirect the page, you're not saving it from vandalism, actually, what you're doing is as bad as vandalism. Just use the revert function to undo malicious edits, redirecting doesn't help, actually, it only prevents the article from displaying and is not a measure against vandalism. Thanks. Todor →Bozhinov 12:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... you go to the template history and revert there. Redirecting to Macedonia does no good, people are expecting to read the FA here, but I can understand your logic to an extent, although I don't approve it. Todor →Bozhinov 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was more complex, it was on one of the templates that transcluded to that page. It took me a while to figure out which one it was and by the time I did someone had already fixed it. MER-C 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfC

Thank you for your interest. Could I ask you to elaborate on why did you find Calgacus outside view to be most convincing? Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. From my view Calgacus seems not to be neutral, as he suggests I am more at fault as Ghirla. Wasn't that your impression as well? If you indeed prefer the neutral outside view, perhaps you could consider reading ones by Elaragirl, Biruitorul or Kusm, which from my perspective are truly neutral (my favourite being of course K. Lástocska's, but it is not neutral, just as I think Calgacus' isn't). Of course I respect your judegement and the time you took to read up on my RfC so far, and I am perfectly fine if you think you've said enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden sources

Hey there. Glad to hear someone's going to try and sort this article out; I had a few sources that I had planned to work with, and placed links up here for anyone who wants them. It's not really much; her webpage, her Toronto Sun column list, an IMDB entry, and a search of O'Reilly's page to indicate that she had appeared, I believe, 16 times on his show at that time. Like I say, it's not huge, but it's something to start with. There's lots of media coverage as well - unfortunately, it's either not online or it's unavailable without purchase, and I'd have to wonder if it'd be accepted anyhow. Good luck! Tony Fox (arf!) 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paint Branch High School Article

Hey, the Paint Branch High School page is lacking in useful information, but changing it to a redirect to Northeast Consortium is not helpful or correct, especially when the Northeast Consortium page contains a link to it, and you did not initiate a discussion on the change. Please consider before making a change like this in the future. Perpetualization 22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 300 passing touchdown club

Five weeks hither, you contested my PROD on this and the related List of 400 passing touchdown club and List of 50,000 passing yards club, quite properly, I imagine, inasmuch as I didn't provide a great reason for deletion; I have just now gotten around to AfDing the articles—I am, de temps en temps, exceedingly forgetful—and I imagine you might like to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 300 passing touchdown club. Cheers, Joe 06:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden

I have simply been trying to uphold the ArbCom decision and principles and to prevent the recreation of an attack page. You must follow Wikipedia policies re: biographies of living persons, and I suggest you read the arbitration committee's decision and comments in this case.Stompin' Tom 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inadvertently deleted comments

Another user seems to have inadvertently deleted your comments to Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid here. You might want to restore them. Jd2718 09:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported here, as you seem to be interested. I complained to jay that he should have warned me on my user page, and not out on a public talk page. We'll see if he reverts. Jd2718 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Catchpole, you have reverted on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid page at least 5 times in the last 24 hours. This is a violation of WP:3RR. Would you mind reverting yourself, before someone reports it and you get blocked? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]