User talk:Longhair

↑

Talk

Recent administrator activity   Edit count   Talk

___________________________________

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 8 days are automatically archived to User talk:Longhair/Archive20.
/Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Kate Ritchie

Hmmm. Blocking AuntyKate.SallyRoxs seems rather heavy-handed. Did you not figure out who she is, or read the top of her talk page? Pingku (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the userpage. Who they are doesn't give the editor any right introduce trivial nonsense to the article on Ritchie. The user was given fair warning via multiple messages to their userpage, which they also chose to ignore. They've only been blocked for 24 hours, not indefinitely, so they've got an opportunity to realise why they were blocked and to discuss rather than edit war in future. We're not here to babysit. -- Longhair\^talk 09:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're perfectly right of course. It does seem a shame, though, with the apparent good faith behind it. Still, she was behaving like a brat. :) Pingku (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Lambourne

You just managed to beat me to it. The page was lifted from Fiona Wood, although you'd probably spotted that too. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Bobby the Musical Prophet

Hi Longhair. i am with the CVN on Wikipedia, and this user just popped up on my radar. He seems to have stripped your indef block warning from his talk and liberated his own page...dunno if he can be blocked from editing his talk page as well, but I thought I'd let you know anyhow! Take care, and thanks for jumping on him so swiftly. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

BrianBeahr

Can you please help me out here. A while back I implemented an infobox to put in VFL season articles, outlining the major team and individual award winners etc. I put them into the articles 1897 to 1950 but no further. BrianBeahr, likes he's done with several other pages (duplication), has decided to make another infobox template. I have told him that a perfectly good version already exists but got no response. He has now replaced the infoboxes in the articles 1897 to 1950. He's been deleting his talk page messages but he recently, in a rare response, said that his infobox is more detailed. By comparing my version to his you can see that it clearly isn't the case. I suggested that any changes he want to make to the infobox, such as adding teams next to the player's name, can be done to the original infobox and a new one isn't required. He didn't respond and instead deleted my comment.

If you don't have the time to deal with this issue I understand, but could you please direct me to somewhere else I can raise this? Cheers. Crickettragic (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Last night I wrote a message on his talk page outlining the problems with his version of the St Kilda Football Club article (which he has since deleted). Each time I or another editor tries to tidy up the page he just keeps reverting back to his version of the article. I understand that he is acting in good faith but he is showing no signs that he is filling to discuss any of his edits so the options are limited. It may not qualify as vandalism but it is still disruptive to wikipedia. As someone on Talk:St Kilda Football Club put rather well, the article looks like a 'dog's breakfast'. Crickettragic (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that you've taken the time to investigate this. Crickettragic (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it as we speak. I am replacing the infobox with the original. I've also edited the original infobox as you suggested, to take into account any positive changes that the one proposed for deletion had. Crickettragic (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I've withdrawn my nomination. I'll wait until it is no longer in use. Crickettragic (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I notice he tried to do you for 3RR lol. Speaking of which, are you able to revert the St Kilda Football Club article back again? It's currently at BrianBeahr's version and I've already undid his revision twice in the last 24 hours. Crickettragic (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As expected, it looks like our friend doesn't want to play ball. With his ban ended he goes straight back to reverting the St Kilda article back to his version. Jevansen (formerly Crickettragic) (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon redirect

I did not close the AfD, however, unless there is some reason not to enforce the ended AfD, then I would certainly push the matter. If you're telling me that there is a lack of consensus, then there are appropriate avenues to approach this, as opposed to giving me a hard time. --Mhking (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So help me understand; if there is only one or two voices in an AfD, then it is not considered valid? How many voices makes it valid? Does that mean that if there are only one or two voices raised in opposition then the article should not be removed or redirected? If that is the case, then why do articles with only one or two voices get removed regularly? What makes this situation different? --Mhking (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mother's Cookies

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mother's Cookies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother's Cookies. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Oscarthecat (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem

Seems so. I'll rather be fixing coords or improving articles then dealing with time wasting vandals. Bidgee (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah

If i see another bloody over there centric thing about ranches (our wa cataloguers in the state idiot box library use 'railroading') the station art smells of some horrible generalisations, heheh - but give me indonesian subs to really rise the ire :) - trust all is well over your way - SatuSuro 12:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're talking about Station (Australian agriculture) or have I been looking at this image for too long?? Bidgee (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh I was talking up the first - stump me grinders i cannot see the connection with the second :( SatuSuro 12:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I just uploaded and added info to that image when I seen your comment on Longhair's talkpage and noticed that you said "ranches" and "station" and put two and two together. Isn't often that I can do that. ;) :P Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Beta Omicron Iota

Thanks for taking care of that AfD. I have a question. Something I read, when researching that article, made me believe that it had already been speedy deleted earlier. Isn't there a way to block a title to prevent the article from being recreated again? Unschool (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Emmalina

Would you be prepared to work cooperatively to improve the Emmalina article or put the verifiable information somewhere? I think there is notability in being a demonstration of the early concerns of Youtube security (she was also a well-viewed meme in the early days of Youtube, even if she isn't now). There is some notability there, even if it doesn't deserve a separate article, it should go somewhere. Any sugestions? (Reply here). JRG (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think she deserves a line or two within the YouTube article, if that. Although she of her own free will decided to launch her life into her own brand of internet stardom, most of her viewers have likely moved onto the next big thing. We shouldn't prolong her public persona if she no longer wants it. Her 15 minutes are over. -- Longhair\^talk 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - not. Completely uncooperative. I don't know why I bother sometimes. JRG (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You got an answer. No need to get all huffy because it wasn't the answer you wanted. -- Longhair\^talk 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No - I didn't get an answer. I got an uncooperative person who has no intention of working with users who are trying in good faith to improve articles. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about improving the encyclopedia, but time and time again I see deletion debates dominated by people who couldn't be bothered doing that, are too motivated by their own self-opinion on how not notable an article is and would never help another user find the best way to proceed with an article. I thought you might be an exception to that. Apparently not. JRG (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to work on the article, or try to squeeze the article in anywhere, because IMHO, there should be no article. She's a young girl who has tried to reduce any harm to herself, and we should be doing everything, as reasonable people, by helping her do that. She want's her article gone, and I tend to see that as a positive effect. You came here looking for an answer, and you got one. I'm sorry, I disagree with your goals here. Like I said above, her time has been and gone. Let her be. -- Longhair\^talk 08:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Metaltome.com

I recently created a site for metaltome.com and was curious why you deleted instantly saying that i didn't state the importance of the site. I did i said it is a social networking site directed towards metal heads and i a place where we can gather from around the world to discuss metal and enjoy metal. I'm just kinda baffled on how to explain it differently. do i need to define social networking or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturus41 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Get it right you prat

I have made no edits to such an article, moron. 89.241.105.87 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)