User talk:Strolls

A page you started (Frank Cowper) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Frank Cowper, Strolls!

Wikipedia editor Noyster just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for the article on what seems a worthy topic. I have queried the notability tag that has been placed.

To reply, leave a comment on Noyster's talk page.

Reference errors on 10 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Cliff Richard page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dolomedes briangreenei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. 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) 09:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

217.40.202.110

Regarding this comment (which the IP has now deleted) - somebody switching to an IP to make damaging edits on controversial subjects certainly goes against WP:ILLEGIT, whether they're editing the same articles or using a "bad hand" IP to vandalise articles they're avoiding touching with their main account. As far as I understand it, Checkuser policy discourages "fishing" to see which accounts might be linked to a bad IP, but if you ever have any idea who the main account might be, by all means raise an WP:SPI going into detail about any similarities of edits. --McGeddon (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Strolls. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit summary...

I think you should read WP:NOTBLUE. While I agree that well-known satirical web sites do not belong on that list, the essay you cited is an argument FOR providing a citation for obvious claims. I think you were looking for WP:BLUE. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I read it immediately after clicking save, I'm embarrassed to admit. I thought it obvious I didn't need to cite that the sky is blue - I googled that, was pleased to immediately find wikipedia has a [[WP:]] article on the subject and linked it before reading it. At the time I was quite frustrated - perhaps it is because of News Biscuit's British humour that American readers do not appreciate its satirical nature, and perhaps because political satire may often depend upon knowing who the players are (News Biscuit have published an article on Michael Gove today). But to me you don't use "it's cited from a reliable source" as an excuse to write things that are obviously wrong on wikipedia, so I was pissed off. Stroller (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may be more on this here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Michael Heseltine. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Theroadislong:, and welcome to my talk page. I gave good reasons for the edit at the time I originally made it - these are better quality images which better represent the subject. My edit has been repeatedly reverted by another user without good reason or explanation.

Arguably File:Lord Heseltine speaking at 'Creating conditions for regional growth'.jpg would be worth keeping.
File:Lord Heseltine, Deputy Prime Minister, UK (1995-97) (10559130986).jpg should be moved lower down the page if it must be kept for the purposes of placating someone, but it's really not that good quality of an image - the subject is not looking directly at the camera and his face is in shadow.

I'd be happy to discuss this, as I initially did when I reinstated my changes, but it's the other party who's made reverts without giving a reason - it's my position that they're edit-warring, not me. The other user has plenty of edits on this page, so I appreciate they make valuable contributions to this site, but wikipedia cannot operate if users are allowed to act like they own articles and pettily revert any edits they simply don't like. As I said in the page history, this is hostile - people aren't going to want to edit wikipedia if a user can "own" a page, and boss other contributors about. I appreciate your time, and any advice you can give in dealing with this. Stroller (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my comments above, I believe the other editor is in breach of the three-revert rule mentioned in your copypasta. The three reverts are:

IDK, I'm just someone who edits wikipedia sometimes, I don't pretend to be an expert and I'm just trying to improve the site and work it out as I'm going along, but IMO the other user is showing bad faith. Stroller (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this matter to WP:3RR. If you continue reverting their edits, you will also be blocked for violating 3RR. As mentioned at WP:AN and elsewhere, please start a talk page discussion if you have issues with the other editor. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's ok, @Primefac:. According to @Timothyjosephwood: I can just blatantly log in from another IP and revert the other guy's edits and that's allowed. (No, obviously I won't do this - it's the other guy who's behaving like an asshole. obviously doing that). This is how you drive people away from contributing to wikipedia - by allowing a user to act like they "own" a page, and revert good faith edits without good reason. I gave reasons for my edits in the change log, the other guy did not. I have no need to take it to the Talk Page, because I know the guy won't listen to me. Thanks for your help, though. Stroller (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Just dropping this here because I've seen a lot of people get wrapped up in it. Image choice disputes are particularly good candidates for WP:RfC, since they often involve mere personal taste, and there is often very little to discuss other than "I like this one better". Other than that, it is not a recommendation but a requirement to discuss content disputes with other editors. When they refuse to discuss, or continue being disruptive despite discussion, that is the time to start reporting things to noticeboards. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if there's any way I can help. TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's courteous of you to drop by and I'd be amenable to some kind of dispute resolution if I thought the other guy would listen. But you've just allowed him to get away with blatantly breaking your The three-revert rule by using a sockpuppet IP, and you're sanctioning the guy who just tried to improve a wikipedia page. Stroller (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, even and especially if you suspect that the other user is being disruptive, that means that you should be the absolute first person to go to talk and try to resolve the issue. That way when you go to a noticeboard, you don't just go with reverts, you go with "I tried to use the article talk a long time ago, and they refused to discuss the issue," which is a much much stronger case that the other user is being openly disruptive, and is much more likely to actually result in sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 00:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen? I stopped reading right there, mate. Why would I listen to you, when you've shown that the things I say, and the work I do on this site, don't matter? It's the other guy who reverted my edits without giving a reason - you can see that for yourself - and yet I get threatened with the three strikes rule that he's already broken. This is not the first time someone's acted like they own a wikipedia page and reverted good faith edits I've made, but it's the first time I've gone to the admins for help, and this is the way I get treated? How do you think I can continue contributing to this site, when you've shown that in the event of disagreement you'll side with the bully? Please do not reply any further unless you've already done something constructive to fix this. Continuing to claim this is my fault or that I've done something wrong will only antagonise me further. Stroller (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are the one wanting to make a change, so YOU need to go to the talk page when it is contested to gain consensus as in bold revert discuss. I have started a conversation there for you, but you have not joined in. Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'll ever contribute to wikipedia again, mate. You've shown me that you can do whatever you like, as long as you log in from a sockpuppet IP. None of your comments addressed his reverts, or acknowledged how blatant it was. You threatened me for trying to contribute positively, and you validated and supported someone WP:ENTITED who reverted me because they think they own the page. I contributed hundreds of hours to wikipedia, and there was far too much of the stuff. I'm only logged in now to find an old page I worked on. Stroller (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change for page

Hi User:Strolls, just wondered can you make an edit to Maiorana page please? That the name is Norman French in origin, on page 326 of this source Della Calabria illustrata the book states that the fleur-de-lis in the coat of arms of the family also indicates a Norman origin. I just don't do edits on that scale, because more than likely no one will edit the page for many months, leaving my mistakes (that become Wikipedia's mistakes) on show. You'd just have to blank the page then change categories to Norman and "Maiorana is an Italian surname" to "Maiorana is a Norman French surname" (Good examples of Norman names are Banister (surname) and Molyneux). Hope you can help, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Strolls. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Strolls. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]