User talk:Honest-john

Welcome!

Hello, Dave006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Wigan St. Judes, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Mr X 13:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wigan St. Judes

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wigan St. Judes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. - Mr X 13:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: tranmere

Hello, Honest-john. You have new messages at U+003F's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January 2014

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Bolton Wanderers F.C. because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Manchester Spartans, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I played for them for many years, does that count as a source?Dave006 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No; content needs to be verifiable by reliable sources. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Wirral wolves. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is sourced, I have messed up the ref links. I am working on it now, will be sorted today, can you help please? Dave006 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manchester Spartans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terry Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan King

I'm sure you're editing with the best of intentions, but - given that the other recent editor is highly experienced and respected here, and you are, in comparison, a new editor - it might be prudent to pause for a while, explain what you are doing on the talk page in a bit more detail, and see whether any other editors are supportive of what you are seeking to achieve. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Honest-john. You have new messages at Ghmyrtle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop

Please stop tagging things with A1 when there is clear context present. Most of these have been notable subjects, but Vile Pervert may not be. However, A1 is definitely not appropriate as a tag. A1 is for things like 'Robert is a man with a funny dog' where neither Robert nor the dog can be identified. Peridon (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave006, I appreciate that you're trying to clean up Wikipedia, but you're going about it the wrong way. Please take a look at this page, which lists the various speedy deletion criteria: WP:CSD. A1 doesn't apply where you've been using it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Honest-john. You have new messages at Peridon's talk page.
Message added 18:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Peridon (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also give you a tip - see WP:3RR - continued reversion can lead to blocking for edit-warring. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

did not know that? Thanks mate, I will follow that from now one, your a good un. Any other articles I should read asap please? (Dave006 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I'd suggest WP:CSD and WP:RS. I think you're on a hiding to nothing about Hedgehoppers and Terry Dactyl, but Pervert and Egg might not be notable and perhaps should be in the JK article. Neither is an A7, though. A7 is people, groups of people, named animals, web content and organised events (but not spontaneous riots or stage plays/musicals). Films, recordings and shows have to be WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your A1s and two wrong A7s off. Have a read first - there's no real rush. Best to get things right. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shaun Tuck

The article Shaun Tuck has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: The Tip Sheet

Hi Dave006. Just a courtesy notification that this one does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Langham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peeping tom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hey, Honest-john, as you can see, I've renamed your account, per your request. Please remember to use this as your username when you log in from now on! Also, just so you know, this rename only affects your account on enwiki; if you have accoutns at other Wikimedia sites, their names will not have changed, and if you want them to match, you'll have to request renames on each site individually, as well. Thanks, and happy editing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but your last edit came up as being from your old user name rather than your new one. Someone in admin-land needs to advise you how to correct that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HitroMilanese. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Fred Talbot, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hitro talk 10:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Benefits Street

Because I'm in the middle of doing a copyedit. Please wait for me to complete this, then discuss any further changes you wish to make. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, kindly read the template I added to the top of the page. I hadn't actually finished copyediting, so it would be helpful if you'd wait a couple of hours for me to work on it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be civil to other editors. Accusing someone of pushing an agenda goes against that principle. What I'm actually trying to do is improve the article by reorganising some of the information, and plan to reincorporate some of your changes. You removed some stuff earlier, which I've temporarily restored while I work on it. If you'll give me a couple of hours to edit the thing instead of complaining then it would make life a lot easier. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've done enough for tonight. As you'll see the changes you made are still included, and I've reorganised the article slightly in an attempt to present the information in a more structured way. More information is needed though. As I've said on the talk page we could do with an episode guide and more on the accusations of poverty porn, etc. I'll look into that tomorrow evening though. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, John. I always intended to keep the changes you'd made as I thought it sounded better, but just to rearrange the text a bit. You're very welcome to review anything I've done though, and to add anything else you feel is relevant. I'd like to see this eventually go forward as a Good Article nominee as it covers an important subject that's generated a much needed debate. So far I've only managed to catch the first episode, but if you've seen more of the series you could perhaps help with the episode summary. I'll see what I can find this evening, but give me a shout if you can help. Thanks Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my Mrs is addicted to it, but if i ask her there will be pages and pages!!lol. Agree, the interest in it is unreal, and has many sides. Going to be hard to get all of them over in the article. I will not do anything to the article mate, will wait till you finish and then just list things that I think can be improved and we will go from there. GA status it will be!Honest-john (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I suppose Google seems to be churning out more left-leaning than right-leaning news articles, but that may be because at least two of the papers from the right (The Sun and The Times) are subscription only so don't tend to show up in searches. I don't think the newspaper's politics matters so much for background and general information, but we need both perspectives as regards the reception. If you can find anything from The Telegraph, the Mail, etc, that covers the same information give me a shout and I'll be happy to add them. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again John, I'm just about done with the expansion now, so it's over to you. Hopefully it's as balanced as it can be. One or two things are a bit patchy, for example I couldn't seem to find who originally described it as poverty porn, so more research is needed on that. Ian Burrell's article from 7 January is the earliest I can find, but that seems to suggest others had already used it. Let me know what you think anyway, and feel free to add any information I've overlooked. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you haven't edited for a few days, so hope you're still keeping up to date with the article. Episode 4 airs tonight so no doubt there'll be a fresh batch of news stories to sift through. I want to apologise for reverting you the other day. The template on your user page set a few alarm bells ringing as someone has suspected your account of being a sockpuppet of a blocked user. You might want to address that in some way, perhaps by removing it or adding a statement somewhere that you're not the sock of Trfc06 (talk · contribs) or something like that. I'll leave it with you anyway, and look forward to reading your thoughts on the article so far. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of minor edits tick box

Sorry if I'm being a pain, but you've been making a number of edits recently that aren't minor but you are marking them minor. Eg there was one where your edit summary made it clear it wasn't minor when you wrote "important to show how extreme the child images were". Minor edits are correcting grammar, typos, formatting, etc. More or less anything else is not minor. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry and understood.Honest-john (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protocols

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot, it honestly looked like you were implying the Protocols weren't a hoax. If you've got fresh stuff, either post them to the talk page as an edit request or (favourite) just wade in and add the material to the article, referenced of course. I think you now pass the autoconfirmed criteria for the page. Welcome to Wikipedia. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Me and the wife.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Me and the wife.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]