Jump to content

User talk:Hroðulf/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2
Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing vessels and rigging
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #26

The Co-operative Bank

We should have a disambig for this.

That bank should have an article on it it's own. It has one citation. I have no idea if it is notable. If it is not, it shouldn't be in the article, and the hatnote should not be there. That section in that article needs to be taken out or something.174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Why not discuss this at Talk:The Co-operative Bank?
(As an aside, notability is a criteria criterion for the existence of an article, not for article content.)
I consider that particular bank is interesting in the context of this article, purely because of its identical name. It is so tiny, and it is hard for those of us who don't live in Boston to find references, that it probably can't get an article of its own, even though it is interesting because of the unique history of "cooperative banks" in Mass.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it should have a disbig. This bank arrangement might be better as, for now, a stub. The hat note should be removed because it presents too much overemphasis on this section.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the emphasis. As I see it, if we make a disambig page, then there would also be emphasis on the minority topic, both at the disambig page and in a hatnote. The current situation is not entirely satisfactory, but the guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation doesn't seem to offer better options. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, your revision of the headline: is that a knee jerk reaction?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the section header? I changed 'miscellaneous' back to 'other' as that is how I see the Roslindale bank, rather than as "made up of various kinds; mixed" [1] --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. I won`t argue it. You don`t like to use wiktionary?174.3.99.176 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with the way Wikipedia tries to avoid confusion about the meaning of "The Co-operative Bank". I think both banks could have done us a favour by choosing more distinctive names! I disagreed with your proposals, but I would still like to see new ideas.

Wiktionary is great but I have used and loved Chambers since it was called the 20th Century Dictionary!

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ridley-hall-college-cambridge-2000-ayres-cc-nc-sa.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ridley-hall-college-cambridge-2000-ayres-cc-nc-sa.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the fair use criteria were less strict back in 2006, or else I didn't understand them as well as I do now. This should go, unless someone can persuade the photographer to release under a free licence. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink FAC

Since you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Grill, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink/archive1, which has not received much commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Great Repeal Bill listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Repeal Bill. Since you had some involvement with the Great Repeal Bill redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

It is an Electro-Optical engineer so you are right! --Ldussan (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the description of the photon now. Thanks --Ldussan (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Timex Group USA

Hey, I am glad you are stepping up to help DTGriffith. I just want to point you to the advice I have given him previously on developing the content of the article thus far, Talk:Timex Group USA#Review. I would do the writing for him, but I have gotten wrapped up in WP:GLAM/SI, Sadads (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. He is a professional writer, and I don't spend much time on Wikipedia these days, so I would hope he can continue to offer his writing. However, I have researched and written a few company articles (in my bland but hopefully passable style) so I hope that between us we can work on building the encyclopedia, and keep it encyclopedic :)
By the way, as you spotted, WikiProject Companies has been very quiet, but I check its talk page when I can as the topic continues to interest me. The parent project, WikiProject Business, seems to be more active, but I don't watch that. Good articles seem to come from other projects: most of our best scoring ones seem to come from the aviation wikiproject, and we have very few FAs.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk)
I will continue to monitor that stuff, and I can copy-edit/style edit and Dtgriffith can as well, I just think we need someone to pull the narrative together. Sadads (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have little understanding of the relevance of the company, or the relative importance of its activities. Lets see if we can work with the sources that Dtgriffith proposes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice surprise finding this here. Hroðulf, I am in recovery from knee surgery right now. I do not know how quickly I will be able to jump on this as I am finding it very hard to concentrate on anything amidst the pain and sleep inducing medication. I hope to make some progress today and over the weekend. Regarding the company's relevance I can understand your POV, without digging past the surface it appears to be obscured, which I aim to address in working with you. Thank you again for offering your help, we'll make this happen. dtgriffith [talk] 15:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, it has been a very busy Summer for me. I am scheduled for another surgery on September 1. The following week of September 6 I will have some down time, so I am planning to focus on this project then. Let me know if that will work for you and how you would like to proceed. Thanks! dtgriffith [talk] 03:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't predict ahead of time how much free time I to spend on Wikipedia. As you can see I haven't been here much lately. The best I can say is "if I am here I am here", but if I am not, I am sure you will make a good job anyway, and others will help. In the meantime, all the best for your surgery. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"dubious"

Hi Hrodulf. I've attempted to answer your question with reference to the specific source (and its own wording) for the potential BLP issue you have identified. Would you be kind enough to have a look over it please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've had another go at the phrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Roll-back of updates to company page for UNIT4

Hi Hroðulf. Just read your feedback on the inclusion of external links to further information about "Key people". I had wrongly assumed that as those references were in the Info box (rather than the main article content) that an external link would not be a problem, especially as this seemed to be in line with how an established article for comparable company SAP AG has used them. As this is not the case, I shall instead provide citation references so there is at least some onward route for information. Thanks for setting me right - there's a lot for a novice like me to get a handle on but I'm sure I'll get there! Nom de Script (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Welcome to Wikipedia - you seem to be learning quickly! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, SAP AG is not a great example to follow. It seems that the community has rated it as "Start" class. Look to featured articles for inspiring examples. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Excellent - thanks for the tip: will do! Nom de Script (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with revisions to history section

Hi Hroðulf, I’ve noticed that you’re fairly active in WikiProject Business and as a new Wikipedian I was hoping you could lend me some advice with a revision I’m proposing to the history section of the Peabody Energy article. I had posted on the article’s talk page discussing these potential revisions last week, but have not received any feedback as that particular article is not very active. I believe my draft of the history section would bring the article more in line with Wikipedia’s content guidelines, but am still looking for another, more experienced editor’s input and was hoping you could look at the changes that I suggested at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peabody_Energy#Proposed_revisions_to_history_and_recent_developments_section and respond as you see fit. Thanks for your time! JamesClyde (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look. It may take a while as I have a few non-Wikipedia things on my plate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Hroðulf for the help, it is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks again! JamesClyde (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Hroðulf, I really appreciate your help with this revision and just wanted to let you know that I have also gone to the Help desk for feedback as I realize you may be fairly busy at this time. JamesClyde (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

James_Ussher

I've hopefully provided an extremely late answer to a question you posed on the date of creation in 2006 on Talk:James_Ussher. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for coming here to let me know. It was indeed a while, but there is a slightly older Wikipedia maxim that goes something like, "There is no deadline." --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Photon rest mass

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Utterly Butterly fix

I eat the stuff but couldn't write an article about it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my first attempt to fix was both clumsy and rude. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

United Registrar of Systems

Hey there; I've declined these CSDs, firstly because they make a claim towards notability, and secondly because I can't find any evidence of a previous deletion discussion. The article has been CSDd before, sure - I'm not sure if that's what you meant - but the "deleted in a previous discussion" tag applies to AfDd articles, not CSDd or PRODded articles. Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notice. There wasn't a claim of notability when I read the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Before I RFD it, it might help if you explain to me which phrase is the assertion of notability.
(I can only see a description of services, number of employees, and number of countries services are for sale in, which don't seem to speak to notability. On the talk page it mentions an accreditation, but in my book, passing an inspection isn't a claim of notability.)
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I have posted this at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Registrar of Systems
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DFCU Financial

Hello Hroðulf. Thanks for your past help with the DFCU Financial page. I am not a Wikipedia expert, and this page is a constant source of vandalism and tendentious editing--including unfounded statements about current staff members and business practices. I believe that this is the result of one individual who keeps creating new user names when one is banned. I'd really prefer not to get into an editing war, but I really am not sure how to block an individual. Can you help? Thanks so much. Mdb751 (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to hear from you. You seem to have already got into an editing war, but I am pleased to see that a few minutes ago, NawlinWiki, the volunteer administrator you contacted, applied "page protection" to the article and blocked the troublesome "sockpuppet" accounts. Such statements about living people are forbidden here. Page protection is always preferred to edit warring, which is highly counterproductive both to the article and to you personally.
Keep an eye on the article, and if the gossip and hearsay reappears, rather than revert it yourself, I suggest you report it to one (not all) of the following noticeboards which are usually well staffed by volunteers that have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart:
Don't forget that reverting it yourself may give an unfavorable appearance either to Wikipedians or to the outside world.
I hope my comments help. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
They are very helpful thanks. I don't have a great deal of time to research and understand the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and I didn't realize that reverts consisted of an edit war when forbidden statements are made. I will continue to monitor the page and take your advice if it becomes troublesome again. Mdb751 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Foot-Pound force

Good morning Hrooulf. Yes, if you can get an administrator to change back the name of the Foot-Pound force page that would be great. I have been enduring edit warring for at least 4 years. I have seen my work disappear many times. I've been hoping someone would help in this area.

Your right! Foot-Pound force is about energy. The unit of force within the foot-pound force is the pound force. Greg Glover (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we will need to demonstrate a consensus on the talk page, in as few words as possible, before an admin will touch it. I'll post a request with what appears to be the relevant form. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited University of Ulster, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gareth Roberts and James Simmons (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) 10:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


WP:Anglican navbox colour discussion

Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. DBD 18:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Andreas Raab

Thank you for editing the article about Andreas Raab. Because of a COI objection I'm not making further edits but I would like to ask you to put back something you removed. You removed a reference to this article [1] with the statement that it doesn't mention Andreas Raab. It clearly does. Under the section named Developers it says, "Andreas Raab seems to have the most commits." This reference was added to support the claim that "Andreas Raab was a key contributor and participant in the Squeak community. He was the largest contributor to the code base."

Thank you for your consideration.

Firstly, I am very sorry for your loss. From watching at his digital footprint over the years (I have never met him) I saw he was a truly remarkable man.
I removed a couple of links but my summary was a little terse: the Scientific American article doesn't mention Dr Raab. The Princeton one does, but it is a copy of a Wikipedia article (probably mirrored around 2011; if it interests you this diff is relevant to the commits question.) I left Goran Krampe's mailing list analysis of method edit timestamps as the only reference for ar's remarkable commit record.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Squeak".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hroðulf/Archive_2&oldid=1144120137"