User talk:Voice of Clam/Archives/2010

Miniature Schools class?

Further to the discussion which is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 15#Miniature Schools class?, I stated:

• 30958-30999: unused

This should read:

• 30958-30960: allotted to the three 1937-built Diesel-electric shunters during construction; they were delivered as SR nos. 1-3, and became BR 15201-15203.
• 30961-30999: unused

Just thought I'd complete the story a bit. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tables in MOS - update

Hiya. This is an update to a discussion we had last September, which I've just archived: User talk:EdJogg/Archive 7#Tables in MOS

Since then, a bullish anon editor has queried my use of this policy (that every link in a table should be linked). It turns out that it now only applies to sortable tables (see Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links), as the wording was revised in January this year.

So, I thought you ought to be aware that your recently-acquired knowledge now has a caveat!

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon?

Sorry, what was this about: [1] ? --BozMo talk 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea! I looked at the change earlier - I can only assume I clicked on roll-back my mistake. My apologies! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fiat Tagliero

Generally speaking, I remove uncited information from articles. After all, we need Wikipedia to verifiable and having a large unchunk of totally uncited, unverifiable text in an article essentially makes us look bad. In cases where the article already has a number of sources and we just need to add sources to verify the information, I tend to add maintenance tags. Anyway, I wish that the information the building provided was cited, as it is a very notable structure. Good luck expanding it!--TM 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but re-adding unverifiable information is considered vandalism. The editor I reverted claims that he is a walking encyclopedia for Asmara and that editors should let readers decide what is true and not without regard to sources. Besides, any information which is challenged has to be verified. By deleting the unsourced info, I obviously challenged the accuracy of the large clump of uncited text. We do not need online sources, but we do need actual sources. Until any real sources for the information are provided (on or offline) the info does not belong on Wikipedia.--TM 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Biting

I have not bitten anyone; Yohannesb made ridiculous comments and I was refuting them. I asked him to read Wikipedia's policies before continuing to edit; he then purposefully re-added unsourced information because he considers himself an expertt about Wikipedia's policies. Perhaps I could have been a little nicer in replying to his comments, but you are incorrect in threatening me on this issue.--TM 18:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying "who cares what you know" is not a way to welcome newcomers, particularly those who may not have English as their first language, and would generally be considered biting. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

His claims to being "a living book" and his showing of total contempt for Wikipedia's policies "Is everything that is in a book true?" as well as his blanket re-adding of challenged information led me to believe that he needed something more than "read a policy" in order for his disruptive edits and comments to change. Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with his alleged nationality or mother tongue.--TM 18:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict news

Hello! The article The Klan (Belgian band) is attacked again. Greetings Raoniz (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not an attack, but a request to delete the article in line with deletion policies (with, it must be said, good reason). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Locations

There are some pictures of the most well known destinations so with lesser known places there is a great chance that there is no picture currently. Other than places there are almost zero free pictures of people. So anyone remotely notable is a sure hit in that almost certainly yours would be the only picture of them. So instead of giving names of locations, any statue other than Heroes' Square is probably a good find and if there is an event or anything with people like a session of Parliament, you could take pics of the individual MEPs, if you can get in or something it's likely to be the only pic available. Hobartimus (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment

Your crystal ball is on form. Line not expected to open until Monday, 8 days after the accident.

I'm getting a little tired of MMN's continual badgering of those at AfD who hold the opposite view to his. Not 100% sure where to raise this though - there's ANI, WQA, RFC to name but three. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was getting annoying, though I don't know if he was breaking any "rules" as such. In cases like this, a request or comment on their talk page should be the first response (you may have already have done this - I haven't checked) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional - I've left a comment on his talk page myself. I'm unlikely to be logging on again for a couple of days, so if the disruption continues, consider further action. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 06:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time in as many days I've felt my ears burning. Roots did go to ANI in the end, and without specifically mentioning me, he got his answer - to sample JohnWBarber, "Editors who are simply uncomfortable being contradicted are on the wrong website. We can't really limit discussion to asking questions, because making points that undermine another editor's rationale generally needs to be done with positive statements". Now, if he wants to make this a personal issue about me, to allege I am somehow making my arguments in a negative way, then of course its ANI for one incident, or RFC/U if he is detecting a pattern. And as his only concern seems to be shutting me up in this one Afd, and I dont think he has actually been following me around at Afd, then it's probably ANI. But that's jsut my two cents, you two are supposed to be the admins who know all this procedural wonkery, I am just a lowly peon who apparently knows "nothing about nothing", to quote the great man himself. Anyway, enjoy your holidays wherever you are TS. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I ended that comment too early. To clarify - MjRoots needs to learn that there is a difference between being robustly challenged, and being badgered, which also came out at that ANI post. There is disagreement as to how far you can depart from an accepted policy before acceptable POV becomes unnacceptable fringe views. There is also disagreement as to exactly when repetition turns into disruptive badgering, but again, as someone in that ANI pointed out, repetition sometimes becomes a necessary evil when, as happened in that Afd, you get the impression some people are simply not reading the nomination rationale, or are latching on to one part of a recent comment and thinking that encompasses the entire debate. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I'd like a more detailed explanation as to why as was blocked or as to why my articles our repeated edited and deleted besides the fact that you have a problem with them.I'm not adding my personal opinion these are facts that I've carefully gathered from the internet and cited and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsamgary (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I blocked you as, despite repeated warnings, you persisted in removing entire sections of text without explanation (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5]. This is not adding facts that are "carefully gathered from the internet and cited and referenced" as you claim. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Educational assignment

Hi, thanks for updating the template. Can you add "<noinclude><!--NOTE: Please add interwikis and categories to [[Template:Educational assignment/doc]].-->{{Documentation}}</noinclude>" to the bottom of the template after the final "}}" so that I can create a documentation subpage? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism from 95.133.226.150

I marked this as {{Resolved}}, which in hindsight was a wee bit rude of me ;-) Should have used {{Done}} or something... anyway, I'm always happy to be reverted if you feel it's not been resolved. TFOWR 12:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider resolved to be an inappropriate response once it was done - thanks for your help in reverting this vandal. (Sorry, I meant to thank you earlier, but I'm busy at work at present). Ho hum - back to the grindstone :-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your unblocking

I f you unblock some one and they immediately violates your unblocking restrictions then you should clearly escalate the length of the block as a further violation and not simply replace the 24 hour block. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you want to comment or I can take it to a noticeboard for review, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given them a fresh 24 hour block, rather than re-imposing the original, so in effect it is escalated. I didn't feel a longer block was warranted, as it is not meant to be punishment. As the user is already being discussed in an Arb-com case, I don't really want to drag him through ANI or similar as well, unless its really necessary. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

He should get escalated to a week and you need to take more care with your administrative actions, as well . Your first mistake was the unblocking and your actions have gone downhill since then. Are you involved in editing the topic under discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no involvement with the topic under discussion at all, nor any prior involvement with that particular user (as far as I can recall), otherwise I would not have got involved. You are making some serious allegations against me - in what sense have my actions "gone downhill"? What is your involvement with the topic, and that user? I note that you are not an administrator, so please leave the choice of block length to those of us who have the experience to do so. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have as much experience as you, likely more...downhill...you unblocked a user on a 24 harmless block, he deserved it and you unblocked him and after you did that he immediately repeated a violation and so your unblocking was revealed as a good faith mistake and then you only gave him a replacement same block after he had re-violated and the trust you gave him, one week would easily be corr3ct and actually the whole issue would have been better if you had not done anything. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your past history, and seeing your current vendetta against another administrator [6], I will not waste my time carrying on this conversation. Please find something more constructive to do. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My past history is what is part of my experience and I can be well proud of it, and I am. Also do not accuse me of vendettas as I care less for such irrelevancies. Don't put out and point the finger at your accusers, reflect in a good faith way about your actions. Your admin actions in this case were poor, and helped no one at all, your inability to accept that is the actual issue. When admins make bad calls and attempt to deny it or ignore it and point the finger at other users and issues uninvolved with their actions it is a worthy constructive cause for wikipedia to point it out. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC

Thanks for the original unblock

And apologies for getting you sucked into the maelstorm of race and intelligence issues. Fun, isn't it? ;-) And I get to deal wit editors like Off2riorob on a regular basis . . . David.Kane (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And thanks to you for your understanding. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

STATicVerseatide1

Hey just wanted to thank you for blocking User:STATicVerseatide1 as he was doing nothing but trouble by vandalizing my page, trolling and impersinating me. So again thanks :). Red Flag on the Right Side 05:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm you might want to block User:24.156.17.6 too as he was doing the exact same thing that STATicVerseatide1 was doing today, yesterday which I think defenatly indicates a sockpuppet. Red Flag on the Right Side 05:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's the same user, they should be auto-blocked, but I'll keep an eye on them. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected requests & Microformats

I noticed you've fulfilled a handful of editprotected request related to microformats, and mentioned that you didn't know much about them. You may be interested in reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats and holding off further editprotected requests until the matter is settled. –xeno^talk 15:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated, I know nothing about microformats, therefore I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring it to your attention, as it may shed some light on the subject. Cheers, –xeno^talk 18:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

HI

Why do u delete my johntoturn..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.110.110.222 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it was clearly nonsense, verging on an attack page, rather than a serious article. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 04:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Singles

May I draw your attention to discussion at Template talk:Singles#hAudio microformat of the recent {{Editprotected}} which you kindly carried out on my behalf. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, I'd prefer not to get drawn into the debate. I'll be happy to continue updating templates for you, when and if there's consensus to do so, but I'm not in a position to judge myself. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Tasks

Huh. Some transclusions of {{Tasks}} are still showing a link to RFE. And my browser cache empties every time I shut down. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to an example? It could be the server cache that needs clearing - try making a null edit to the page in question. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_finance_topics. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok to me - expand links to Wikipedia:Writing better articles, a valid essay, rather than the historic Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why does the What links here for RFE still show it as linking? Template lag? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Found it, in {{bizetasks}} [7]. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Gmund10/Büttenpapierfabrik Gmund

Hi, Tivedshambo! The User asked me in the german Wikipedia for help. The article is now in main namespace, so it don't need to be in the user namespace.--Johnny Controletti (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my German isn't good enough to translate that. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And i have problems with my englisch to declare it. The speedy delete was a wish of the user:Gmund10! Please reset your change.--Johnny Controletti (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the request will need to come from User:Gmund10's own account. Incidentally, I sense a conflict of interest here. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tivedshambo,
I'm user Gmund10 and I'm actually not really able to explain it either...but I'll try.
I'm the author of "Büttenpapierfabrik Gmund" it is now online in a german and english version on wikipedia. When the german version was moved to go online, two days later the articel was deleted from my account, because wikipedia doesn't like duplicates or so?
Now I'm just wondering that nobody deleted the article from my account so far...
Maybe you can clearify it.
Thank you for your effort!
Best regards, --Gmund10 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the request - now  Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good morning,
thanks, that was quick ;-)
Have a good day,--Gmund10 (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IP Exemption

Hi Tivedshambo, thanks for the IP exemption. Aclarado (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dudley Watson

I've stubbed Dudley Watson and restored the unref BLP tag... the sole source given was basically an attack page by a disgruntled sheep farmer that was in conflict with Watson and the unions. Considering the contentious nature of the claims (and indeed the contentious nature of the work that Mr. Watson was involved in), I think we need to insist on high quality sources (and sourcing) here. Gigs (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. If, as you say, the source was just an attack page (I admit I didn't have time to read it in full), then it fails WP:RS. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 19:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

MMN @ ANI

Thanks for your kind words. I'm not going to get stressed over it. More admins will be aware on MMNs behaviour now, and hopefully there will be greater scrutiny of his editing. I don't agree with the early closure, but will not pursue that to avoid further drama. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, MMN has taken me to RFC over my raising the issue at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just got home from a long weekend break. I had about 3 hours sleep last night, and a long journey today so I'm really not up to making any comments at the moment. I'll look at it tomorrow. zzzzz  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How is this personal?

I don't understand? How was that a personal attack, when it wasn't directed at a person?-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner

It was clearly aimed at a group of people. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Clare Adamson photo copyright

My former agent Clare has e-mailed me to confirm that it is alright to use the photos of her from her old candidate website. I would be happy to forward this email to you to support the copyright claim. Cheers.MekQuarrie (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't email it to me - fill in the consent form and send it to the OPRS team at permissions-commons﹫wikimedia.org —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Appreciate your time.MekQuarrie (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks a lot for granting roll back back rights.i hope to use it as per wiki guidelines.Thank you once again.LinguisticGeek 08:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Russbot

I saw your query/comment to R'n'R. An explanation as to what it is up to can be found here: User_talk:R'n'B#link_edit_to_Udi. Whether that convinces you to restart it is up to you! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Hindi Imposition page

Hi,

This is regarding the redirection of the page Hindi Imposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindi_imposition&oldid=386682273) to Hindu Nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_nationalism). There are 3 reasons given for this redirection:

1)The article has very little content

2)It may not meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements

3)It could easily be included in Hindu Nationalism

While I completely agree with reason (1) and partially agree with reason (2), I totally disagree with (3).

Hindi Imposition in India refers to the initiatives by the central government of India to popularize Hindi language through various measures. Many states in Indian republic have protested against. For eg : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindi_agitations_of_Tamil_Nadu

Hindu nationalism refers to social and political initiatives to define a Nationhood based on spiritual and cultural aspects of the Indian sub-continent.

Hindi Imposition and Hindu Nationalism are totally different topics. Hence I would strongly suggest to delete the redirect and the original page and request the authors to compose the article more systematically.

regards

skbhat --Skbhat (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you're better off discussing this with User:Bearcat, as they imposed the protection. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Regarding the protection of "Hindi Imposition" page,I could not finish up updating the page with all details.I created the page and added some links. We still have a lot of content to add and before that the page got redirected and so protected now.

Please read below the difference between Hindi Imposition and Hindu Nationalism.

Hindi is a language in India and HindU is a religion.

There are 22+ recognised National languages in India.One among them is Hindi. The history of Hindi Imposition dates back to 1950's when India was created.When India got its independence from British,it was a union of different states all of which had different languages.SO the government wanted to enforce a single language across the country and made that language as Hindi. There were widespread protests and demonstrations in Tamilnadu,Karnataka and other southern states opposing this imposition of Hindi. We want to detail the happenings of all these years and present a neutral opinion.

HindU Nationalism is a topic related to religion and no where related to language.

Please unprotect it and give us sometime to update the article.We can review it after it is updated and if we still feel it is related to HindU nationalism,we can redirect it.

Thanks Gautham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasu srk (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above. If this is unsuccessful, try dispute resolution, or WP:ANI if you think that that myself or Bearcat have acted improperly. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell Fuller

can you reinstated the page russell fuller - i have references to add - i am new to this and learning my way - sorry for not doing correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdsport (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Restored to User:Mattdsport/Russell Fuller - see comments on your talk page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell Fuller

Have added 2 references and why this person is notable to the page russell fuller as suggested. could you please make live again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdsport (talk • contribs) 10:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Connelly

Can you please reinstated the page richard connelly so I am can references and why notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdsport (talk • contribs) 11:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Brian Welsh

That's not edit-warring -- that's way-beyond-3rr by a COI-afflicted editor. No block for the only real problem editor? I can take it to 3rr/n if necessary... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As the user is a newbie, who may have a valid WP:BLP point (I haven't looked at this dispute in detail), I'm inclined not to impose 3RR sanctions at present. I think it would be better to see what the outcome of the WP:BLPN discussion is first. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Heeelp!

Hi,

I've just been reading the discussion on the Ysgol Gyfun Llanhari entry, and I'm a little confused. How would i...

a) Boost the school's 'importance' and remove us from stub class

b) Why are individuals demanding that the entry is translated?

No ideas, since I only dib in and out of wikipedia periodically, although, seemingly I am the only one that has added any content of note.

Help!

Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.29.226 (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi - to answer your second question first: My comment that it needed translating was based on the article's first draft, which looked like this. Someone didn't realise that the first line was Welsh, and tagged it as nonsense. Obviously thanks to editors like yourself, it's now improved beyond the stub status, so I've changed the class to Start (see assessment criteria). This gives ideas about how to improve it - in this case more references should be provided to back up some of the information, such as the former pupils. I suggest asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools for further help. And that, I think, answers your first question as well. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

By Souvalou

I did read that. And very very very very carefully. I really think I want to be an Administrator.--Souvalou (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Yes, I would like for it to be deleted it myself. Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're refering to this -  Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Godfather

All edits by a block-evading sock (in this case an IP sock of a long-blocked editor) are themselves vandalism. These latest edits are part of a long-term pattern of POV-pushing, block evasion, personal attacks, vandalism, and plain disruption by an editor who could not deal with no getting his way. If you look at the history, you will see a series of attacks early last week, which led to two IPs being blocked. This is an extension of that same pattern of vandalism. He has always attempted to claim that The Godfather is a thriller; the issue has been discussed at length, consensus was against him; coming back now and adding two refs which are not reliable does not change the situation. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the contributions for 201.68.206.194, a sock of Pé de Chinelo. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV is for Blatant vandalism only. Content disputes should be resolved as per WP:DR, and socks reported at WP:SPI —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

proda

I had some expiring BLP expired prods for which I was looking for sources. Foir a few I found them, but you had already deleted them. I restored the ones I think have a chance of notability & I thought ought to let you know. (this is not criticism, I'm only reasonably sure about the first of them.)

1. Meri St. Mary .This isn't really my subject field, & I didn't do a comprehensive search, but the info in the sf bay times article seems impressive -- and I just noticed while putting it in-- it wasn't obvious-- but the source was actually in the article all along.
2. Stiaan van Zyl, seems to play professional first-class cricket, & has refs for it.
3. Siddharth Chandrasekhar There was in fact a source in an earlier version of the article. -- I am not quite sure of notability here, & Ive tagged it accordingly

 DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bathgate railway station

Hi. Can I draw your attention to this discussion, which could do with a railway-minded admin to sort things out? Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! --RFBailey (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Trouble House Halt

Re this edit - you're quite right, of course. I now have a problem. The convention seems to be that if a station was first opened before 1923, we put it in Category:Former (pre-grouping railway) stations (such as Category:Former Midland Railway stations); if first opened in 1923-47 period, we put it in Category:Former (post-grouping railway) stations (such as Category:Former London Midland and Scottish Railway stations). But I don't know the equivalent for a station first opened in or after 1948. Any ideas? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - Category:Railway stations opened by British Railways perhaps? There's plenty of those. That still leaves the problem of post-privatisation. Might be a cue for another lengthy discussion at WT:UKRAIL. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Douglas (locomotive)

Most of the content is a straight copy-paste from [8]. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A reivsion deletion action you did

I was looking back at revision deletion actions done at the deletion log, anfd I can't understand the reasin for this action. While you were correct in deleing the page under CSD G10, the page's deletion log contains none of the degrading material. Any reason for this action? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, it was a page I deleted in a hurry, and forgot the golden rule of not quoting any of the material in the summary, so that it did appear in the deletion log. I'm fairly sure I flagged this up for oversight at the time, but for some reason it didn't get done. When I was looking through my own deletion log recently, I came across it, and as we now have the ability to remove log entries (something we didn't have in 2008), I did it myself. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I thought I had sseen the page name was hidden, I see I was wrong. If you look at my recent log eentries, you'll see why I just noticed that now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My page

Hi I'm Bina Shah, the author of the Bina Shah wikipedia page. I was making edits to the page - updating with recent information - and you blocked me for vandalism. How can this be reversed, please? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.97.184 (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cant find any reference to User:Bina Shah - it appears not to have been registered. When were you blocked, and what message appears when you try to edit? If the account is still blocked, place {{unblock|reason for unblocking}} on your user talk page. Also please note the following:

• You should not be editing anonymously if your account is still blocked, see WP:Block evasion
• Ideally you should not be writing about yourself - see WP:Conflict of interest

I'll look into this further tomorrow evening, but at present I'm on an unsecured network so I'm unable to use my admin privileges. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 22:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still can't find which account you're referring to. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sir Haydn (locomotive) & Edward Thomas (locomotive)

Orlady (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Expand}} templates RfC

Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Recategorisation

Hi, re this in particular but also several similar instances: why should the page not be in Category:London, Midland and Scottish Railway locomotives? It's an article dealing with a whole class of LMS loco, not a specific preserved loco; and not every member of the class has been preserved. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad - I'd moved everything from Category:Preserved steam locomotives of Great Britain to (for example) Category:Preserved London, Midland and Scottish Railway steam locomotives, which is a sub-cat of Category:London, Midland and Scottish Railway locomotives, but I didn't take into account that there were classesof locos involved here. Personally, I think the preserved locos categories should really contain only specific locomotives. I'll sort it out when I get the chance, but I'm off to bed now. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you deleted Aetherborn ?

WHY ? ¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.122.230.95 (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the article failed to show why the band was in any way important or significant, and therefore it met the relevant Criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest you read WP:MUSIC, and though it seems a bit harsh, Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yankees1987

Regarding your block on Yankees1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), based on a simple duck test of them adding Catholic cats to generally the exact same article, they have previously been editing as 99.63.26.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and warned and blocked on multiple occasions for the exact same BLPCAT ignoring behaviour. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I'll keep an eye out and if he/she continues violating without making any useful edits, I'll block them indefinitely. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, based on previous history I doubt you'll have long to wait. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not long at all. IP already blocked for a month, FYI. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Istanbul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Istanbul , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. İnfoCan (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reactions

Just wondering if you had had any feedback on the site I created for a magazine called Reactions? It's been deleted, but I thought it was fairly neutral and followed a precedent set by other publications with Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfasken (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can see the closing admin's comments here. I suggest you try WP:Deletion review, as generally it's not considered good form for one admin to overturn the decision of another without consensus. I'm not going to be around for a couple of days, but if you need a hand, let me know and I'll see what I can do when I'm back on-line. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in the World

Hi there, need your help on the Somewhere in the World (song) article. User:75.4.229.246 keeps adding the iTunes chart on the article but I have removed it a few times because it is not a valid chart on Wikipedia according to WP:BADCHARTS. I've discussed this with the user but he/she won't listen and keeps reverting my edits. Can you block the user? ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to block one side over a content dispute - I suggest you seek further advice at WP:AN. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Fine, I didn't warn them. That still doesn't mean that their edits are useful to Wikipedia or that they should be allowed to edit unhindered. The IP address is clearly in use by the SAMJOOSSS account, and both have been used to insert false information under the guise of presenting it as real information. This either falls under the "Sneaky vandalism" banner as what is vandalism or the "Misinformation, accidental" banner as what is not vandalism. Either way, to prevent the project from having false information live for over two months because no one realized what was happening is bad for the project and the account and IP should most definitely be blocked so they cannot be used to repeat these mistakes in the near future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, but I've been out battling the weather to get the last minute Christmas shopping :-)

Sneaky vandalism is really outside the scope of WP:AIV, which is really an emergency stop for vandals who are disruptive at that present moment. If a vandal is not active at that time, it is better to use WP:AN, or possible WP:SSP if sockpuppetry is suspected. Bear in mind three things:

1. Most admins will be unaware of the problem, or the subject matter in hand, so for example if a user repeatedly the result of the 1957 tiddlywinks world cup, it won't be immediately apparent if the is vandalism or correcting incorrect data. Also bear in mind that that user may be acting in good faith, and they have sources which disagree with the sources in the article.
2. If a user is swapping between multiple accounts and/or IP addresses, blocking one account that was last used two days previously is unlikely to have much affect.
3. We do give warnings for a reason. Blocking should always be a last resort, not the first line of defence; preventative not punitive. After all, some vandals do go on to be good editors. Even if you suspect the user has been warned elsewhere, we have to assume good faith that it may be a different user (AIV is not SSP).

These points are summarised in the header of WP:AIV, and hopefully this will help you understand why they're there. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Smart Children

hello I am a new user and I was writing about Smart children. Can you help me with that? I am the owner of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ht10ssi (talk • contribs) 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, write it in your own words. Pages copied from other sites are copyright violations, and will be deleted. This doesn't just mean copying it and changing a few words - the method I use is to read an article two or three times, close it and then try to summarise the important points from memory. Then re-read the source to make sure you haven't missed anything important. Add references back to the original source so that your text can be verified.
• Secondly, make sure the subject you're writing about is notable. The subject should be discussed in independent sources as well as the subject's own website. You should use these sources in your article, so that a neutral point of view is displayed.
• Thirdly, if you are directly involved with the subject, e.g. you're promoting your own theory, I would strongly advise you not to bother. Editing with a Conflicts of interest is strongly discouraged, and often leads to articles being deleted. Instead, you can request that an article be written for you.

If you want more help, you can try going through the steps at WP:Tutorial and WP:Starting an article. Hope this helps, and good luck! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Block Exemption;

Thank you for your time Tived.Koncorde (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)