Came here from another place which has lost its way.

Will stay and see what I can do.


Hi. You listed List_of_war_heroes at 3RR. But... (a) it was 3 not 4 (b) there is no discussion on the talk page at all. William M. Connolley 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, my mistake over the rules, 1st time I have "been bold" and listed something for deletion - have I done things in the wrong way - (apart from not adding anything to the discussion page - now done)? Assuming he had done 4 reverts, was what I did OK? (sorry also for not reading your box on your page and initially posting there. --C Hawke 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Had it been 4, you would have been correct. Read WP:3RR perhaps. Also a good idea to drop him a note on his talk page: maybe there is a good reason for what he is doing; always worth while trying to ask. William M. Connolley 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC).


Hi there! I just wanted you to know that user:Swedenman is identical with Filipman on Swedish Wikipedia. This user has been involved in several edit wars. He has been editing unreflectingly. In addition to this he has abused other wikipedians. Filipman, who claims to be 14 (!) years old, has been banned 6 times [1]. Probert 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Who and Deep PurpleEdit

Can you lodge an official complaint against this SOB who keeps adding horribly referenced claims of 100 million albums sold to The Who's and Deep Purple's pages? I don't know how to do that. This jerk has even put warnings on MY talk page about banning ME for deleting his garbage. Thanks for helping me keep these pages encyclopedia worthy. (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, he also put this bullshit on my page about me being a sockpuppet of YOU. Register a complaint about that, too, if you can. (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas I don't really know how to follow this up, unless the user breaks the 3 revert rule. THere is a similar edit war on Pink Floyd and looking at some other pages similar across the site.--C Hawke (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The Pink Floyd one has flared up again? Wonderful. Back to work. (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


See above, this refers to an edit war over credible references on the Deep Purple entry - most of those writing in the discussion agree that the references quoted do not meet WP:RS but these keep getting reverted, and now I am being accused of vanalism - it appears that those keen on the poor quality references are not prepared to discuss their point on the relevant page.--C Hawke (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Help MeEdit

I recommend that you take the issue to Request for Comment Or you can ask an Administrator. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've addded it to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as that seems the best place as it is the reliability of the sources that is in debate - if that fails I'll ask an admin - what is the current policy on removing the vandalism tag on my page? I know in the past it wasn't approved of to remove it yourself?--C Hawke (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I tnull'ed the helpme template above, it seems you have appropriate help on this issue. Also, see WP:BLANKING about the removal of warnings. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to let me know. --omtay38 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

{{help me}} I am concerned about potential Sub judice issues on this entry 22_May_2008_Exeter_bombing but can't find a relevant WP policy that I can cite on the page. THe entry is writen as it is a fact that the person named carried out the crimes stated, as there hasn't been a trial this is against UK law. ANyone give me advice on this issue before I add anything to the page? --C Hawke (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the content of an article, the best place to raise them is on the article's talk or discussion page. That way, you can share your thoughts with other editors working on the same article and develop consensus on how to proceed. Explain your concerns there, setting out your reasons why you feel the article should be changed. Alternatively, you can always be bold and make the changes yourself, but if someone else disagrees with you, please use consensus before repeating your changes. Hope his helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 11:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Ta - was bold and made the edits - not too many to be honest when I looked at it and compared the tone to the BBC pages (if anyone can be trusted to get it right...) Cheers--C Hawke (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Monster Magnet in space rock articleEdit

The big box above the list asks that the opening paragraph of each band's article mention the artist as being classified as "space rock", in addition to having it in the infobox. Sorry to be so picky about this. The "rule" was added because some inappropriate bands were being added to the list, and the idea was that if someone were trying to get a band listed as "space rock" by changing the article to say the group is in that category, but they aren't, someone watching the band's article will notice this and revert or at least challenge the change, which will bring it to our attention. This is more likely to happen when it's added to the opening paragraph, rather than the infobox. This rule was put in to keep out vandals, pranksters, and impulsive, poorly thought out editing. I'll trust that Monster Magnet's inclusion in the list is credible, but could you do me a favour and edit the Monster Magnet article's opening paragraph, which will demonstrate that watchers of their article are in agreement. Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

doh! me being lazy, I didn't re-read the requirements - I thought it was one or the other, to be honest, I think this is how it should be, after all some bands can sit happily in many, many genres, and this makes it hard to include it in the actual wording - I was surprised to see you'd removed it - (but accept it was me that was wrong). I suppose it keeps te list to those bands who are mainly thought of as Space Rock - which to be honest Monster Magnet aren't - I think they only gain the listing in their info box due to covering several Hawkwind tracks. I think they can come out, that way it eeps the list short.--C Hawke (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove it a second time, but will do so now, since you feel it doesn't belong. Thanks for removing it, and for reverting another user's similar edit. As for whether we're going about this the right way, probably not, and maybe there shouldn't be a list in the article at all. But I'm betting some editors will be ticked if the list is removed. There is also a space rock category page, but I haven't been maintaining it, or keeping the lists in sync. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourcesEdit

Regarding this edit, I feel it was inappropriate to remove the source for the 30,000 figure in October 2006, provided that the information itself was still in the article. Esn (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Jason Stuart (musician)Edit

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jason Stuart (musician), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jason Stuart (musician) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jason Stuart (musician), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with your proposal, to quote the guidelines: "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". WWGB (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Something for you to keep an eye out for: an opportunity to replace those old worn and scratched vinyl with pristine sparkling plastic. Unfortunately, Santa will have just missed it. Drwhawkfan (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, but I was digital as they all came out originally! The only one I missed was Astounding Sounds - which I had a slight guilty pang when I bought a suspect german version. Which dows mean of course, as I mentioned on the original Hawkwind LP page, I missed out on all the extras, so I do have to restrain myself if there are any stuff I feel I "must have" on re-releases! --C Hawke (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Roary/UK vs USEdit

Fair enough, in theory--but did you notice that instead of mentioning the US names, you actually just removed them for 2 of 3 affected characters? GJC 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

nope - missed that - teach me to edit just the 1st paragraph, whilst doing other things- thanks--C Hawke (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

hw re-mastersEdit

You go away for a little while, and when you come back you find the children have been causing havoc in your absence. What's going on? It seems there's a little clutch of people using the HW wiki page to air their own grievences - I wonder how old these people are, they can't be school kids, surely? Anyway, thanks for the mini-review of 25Y, the comments I've come across is that the sound is excellent (I wonder how much the compression has played in shaping people's perpective of it) and there's one or two decent bonus tracks to be had. I may well dip into Quark and/or pxr5, but it's a pity they couldn't find the original tapes for live 79 so we could have the whole show. — Drwhawkfan (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder why you'd been quiet of late - yep, it has been a bit tiresome, as you see had to get the hawkwind page semi protected for a week or so. I wonder if it is linked to the bitter online war of words from the former bass player I 've noticed is refered to on the hawkwind forums. But these claims that kept getting added are all very strange - if they had any truth to them the the official forums and the BOC-L mailing list would have had some comments in - both are quiet. I'm not sure if Mr Dibs lives near DB - if so then I'll keep an eye on the local rags this week to see if there is anything (as I'm in that area too)

One of the main reason for getting 25Y (aprt from it being one of my faves) is that is is exactly 25 years since I first saw them (next month I think, can't recall exact dates, but I know they are all on some site somewhere, Leiceister 1984) so I thought I'd treat myself. My wife even like the Accoustic "Only Ones" - so worth it for that alone! If you do get PXR5 when it comes out I'll be interested to know if High Rise is back to the vinyl version. Cheers.--C Hawke (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deep PurpleEdit

Hello - you reverted my revert to Deep Purple, citing consensus regarding the band not being heavy metal. I can't see any consensus on the discussion page - only a debate about the mention of heavy metal in the lead. What I did find after some quick poking around in the history of the article is that the "heavy metal" genre has been on the deep purple infobox for years, and also had cites until someone deleted the genres entry from the infobox for a period of time. So I'm curious to know - where was this consensus, and why wasn't it acted on for several years if it was indeed a consensus? Random name (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

True, I maybe reverted to soon, I thought it had been decided in the Talk page, however, what is true is that there have been many changes to heavy metal in the genre, all have been reverted quite quickly, the majority of the time it has been absent. So this, IMHO, is the real consensus with those who edit this page, I'm staying out for now though - especially as you overdid your revert by accusing me of Vandalism - I gave a polite reason for the revert and was acting in good faith.--C Hawke (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't actually me that reverted your change, and I would agree "vandalism" is OTT. Perhaps you'd consider joining in the discussion page conversation? We could quite do with having a consensus on the talk page to refer editors to in the future, regardless of what the consensus ends up being. Random name (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent IP edits to Deep Purple articlesEdit

Hi! I couldn't help notice that IP user has made a number of changes to Deep Purple related articles that are of dubious accuracy. I spotted it because I had to revert his edits to the "Hey Joe" article, in which he added a lot of incorrect info. I see that you've also reverted his edits on the Shades of Deep Purple album article. I suspect that most of his edits, across multiple articles were incorrect. Myself, I’m not terribly knowledgeable about Deep Purple and really don't feel qualified to verify the accuracy of his edits. Anyway, if you feel so inclined, perhaps you'd like to take a look at his edits - which can all be viewed here. Just wanted to give you the heads up! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in a similar situation - I got the obvious ones during my lunch break, but haven't time to chase anymore I'm afraid - I may have time later to check on other edits or raise it with an admin - the edits are clever as they are small edits, often done over several versions--C Hawke (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alan DaveyEdit

I've reverted back to a previous "good" version, and I've done a very quick clean-up. I have no interest or knowledge in Davey's work, so can't add to the article I'm affraid. I think it does need a significant clean-up, and references of course would be good. The person who is deleting the text is Premiermaple (contribs), who appears to be Josh from Dreamspirit. He has form in the nasty vandalism of the Dave Brock and Hawkwind pages. I don't know what his problem is, but keep an eye out at what he's up to and don't be affraid to revert any changes he makes. I'm not going to have access to wikipedia for a few months, so I'm not going to be able to help you. — Drwhawkfan (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'll keep an eye on it now, have fun away--C Hawke (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It didn't take too long for someone to jump in there. I don't know what their problem is, but they're persistent. — Drwhawkfan (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop just deleting spacerocktrading, without posting a talk and without a good reasonEdit

Stop just deleting spacerocktrading, without posting a talk and without a good reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacerock99 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Does anyone collect 8-track?"Edit

A friend of mine does. I myself have a few things on 8-track which are not duplicated by my thousands of LPs or thousands of CDs. (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, CHawke. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, CHawke. 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)