|
User talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/1
June 2010Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Bowers (bus company) has been reverted. English
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used. In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. –BMRR (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) November 2010
 Hi Rcsprinter123. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and Wikipedia:Not now, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that request and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)  This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Sixes, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.renewingthesixes.com. It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues. If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC) November 2010
December 2010
Cheltenham SpaPlease don't remove the redirection and copy/paste the content from Cheltenham again. There is no need for two articles. Stephenb (Talk) 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-free files in your user space
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC) CANOIf you remove a prod tag, explain why you're removing it, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. Just blindly removing tags like that is seen as disruptive. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC) RfAI just reverted the edit you made to WP:RFA. You attempted to transclude a non-existing nomination—with the wrong capitalization to boot. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC) RfAHello Rcsprinter123, how are you? I see that you put yourself forward to serve as an administrator. That's a very tough job, and people will no doubt appreciate your offer to help. It looks like you made a few mistakes in the process and your edits to WP:RfA were reverted because they didn't work. Before you try and put yourself forward again, I'd like to ask you to reconsider. The standards required in an admin are really high these days. There are between 13 and 14 millon registered editors on Wikipedia; while there are around 1,700 admins. That's one-hundredth of one percent. Usually people with two year's experience and around 4,000 or 5,000 are getting to the point where they should consider becoming an admin. At the moment, you've been registered for six months and have less than 400 edits. If you applied now, you wouldn't be sucessful. Take at look at WP:NOTNOW. An admin needs quite a bit of experiencing creating and editing articles. Then they need to know about copyright policy (see WP:Copy), have experience building consensus (see WP:Consensus), contributing to policy discussions (see WP:Policy), and having experience with our deletion policy (see WP:XfD, WP:PROD, WP:CSD), and blocking policy. Notice all of these article have the prefix WP:, these are behind the scenes Wikipedia policy and discussion pages that people don't find under normal article searches. You've made a good start. Keep up the good work, follow some of those links and start to increase your involvement and, before long, you'll be ready for being an admin. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC) December 2010
 The article Greater Manchester/Derbyshire Bus Route 358 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing The article Skyline 199 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Red linksWhat makes you think there are no more red links? Maybe you set your skin so they are a different colour for you, but I assure you they exist for most people. SBHarris 17:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Other people's user pagesYou're not really supposed to edit other people's user pages, and certainly not create one for another active user who you've never interacted with. Would you like to explain why you did? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Nomination of Skyline 199 for deletion The article Skyline 199 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyline 199 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AD 19:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Nomination of Greater Manchester/Derbyshire Bus Route 358 for deletionThe article Greater Manchester/Derbyshire Bus Route 358 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Manchester/Derbyshire Bus Route 358 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AD 19:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Bus route articlesMost routes aren't notable enough for Wikipedia, with only a few exceptions. Most can be covered in list form, or merged into one article. Another site such as this one would probably appreciate your help more. AD 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome! Hello, Rcsprinter123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place Speedy deletion nomination of Skyline 199
A tag has been placed on Skyline 199, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Do not editA tag has been placed on Template:Do not edit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding -tonJust a couple of notes for you:
I realize you're fairly new around here, so you may not be familiar with all the nuances of how things work around here — so I hope that helps you understand a bit better why I keep retagging the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC) This is getting ridiculousYou were stopped from creating Important bus routes in Derbyshire, so you came up with Key bus routes in Derbyshire? Changing the title doesn't make it any more appropriate. You should read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT some time. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer permission Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use. Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages. For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC) UserboxTemplate:Userbox no-design-many is an exact copy of User:Alzarian16/UBX2 with the ID changed. As well as being a bit pointless, this causes copyright attribution problems. Since there's an existing discussion on the same topic at the admin incidents noticeboard, I've mentioned it there: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copying content from userspace. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Burger King
 The article The Toilet of Doom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Speedy deletion nomination of The Toilet of Doom
A tag has been placed on The Toilet of Doom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding I'm confused. First you said "do not delete", then you placed a speedy tag on it. (e/c) Well it looks like the article was deleted as I was typing this message. If you didn't want it deleted after all, please contact Sphilbrick (talk · contribs), the deleting admin, who can userfy it for you. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Non-free files in your user space
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 Rcsprinter123/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: what did i do to be blocked? I uploaded that file ages ago, and nobody seemed to think any thing was up with it, so why are you doing it now!? plus, it is important i can edit as i am in the middle of a GA review. Accept reason: You are now unblocked.
Quick-failed, unfortunately. You, the nominator, have once and haven't gone through the article to thoroughly improve it before nominating. Please see my comments at the GA review page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Good article nominationsIt looks like you've been trying to nominate some articles for a good article review. You don't need to edit Wikipedia:Good article nominations (and if you do, will likely be reverted by the GA bot). You just need to follow the instructions on that page under "How to nominate an article". --BelovedFreak 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Incorrect archiving procedureHey, Rcsprinter. Just a procedural note, you moved Talk:Elizabeth II to an archive page with the "move" feature. Archiving is done with the cut and paste procedure; rather than moving the whole page, we just cut out individual sections and paste them in the archives. Moving the whole page, among other things, moves recent and ongoing discussions into archives - that isn't good, obviously! In addition, a lot of pages have a box that says "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I..." These templates inform you when the page is set up for automatic archiving. On these pages, users never need to perform archiving procedures themselves- it's all automatic. No action is required on your part to fix this- it's already being resolved. I'm just writing to inform you of the proper procedure. If you've performed other archiving attempts, feel free to let me know and I'll see if any action needs to be taken on them. The minor procedural mistake aside, thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! Hopefully this will clarify any confusion to prevent further mistakes. If you have any questions, let me know. Regards, Swarm X 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Good article nominationsIt looks like you've been trying to nominate some articles for a good article review. You don't need to edit Wikipedia:Good article nominations (and if you do, will likely be reverted by the GA bot). You just need to follow the instructions on that page under "How to nominate an article". --BelovedFreak 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Incorrect archiving procedureHey, Rcsprinter. Just a procedural note, you moved Talk:Elizabeth II to an archive page with the "move" feature. Archiving is done with the cut and paste procedure; rather than moving the whole page, we just cut out individual sections and paste them in the archives. Moving the whole page, among other things, moves recent and ongoing discussions into archives - that isn't good, obviously! In addition, a lot of pages have a box that says "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I..." These templates inform you when the page is set up for automatic archiving. On these pages, users never need to perform archiving procedures themselves- it's all automatic. No action is required on your part to fix this- it's already being resolved. I'm just writing to inform you of the proper procedure. If you've performed other archiving attempts, feel free to let me know and I'll see if any action needs to be taken on them. The minor procedural mistake aside, thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! Hopefully this will clarify any confusion to prevent further mistakes. If you have any questions, let me know. Regards, Swarm X 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) My userpageHi there. Was wondering if there was any reason you edited my userpage? I see you were trying to play with the displaytitle. Are you trying to do something similar or do you have an issue with me doing it? Worm 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Chapel-en-le-Frith and GA nominationsHello, I've reviewed Chapel-en-le-Frith against the GA criteria and unfortunately the article is not at that standard yet. I had a quick look at the other articles you have nominated and, although I won't review them, I have to say that it's unlikely they'll pass as they are. You might want to consider withdrawing them. It's by no means required that you have edited an article to nominate it at WP:GAN, but it certainly helps. If you've spent some time editing an article, you will be familiar with the sources used and be able to respond to any concerns of the reviewer. I've noticed that you've started reviewing nominations too. That's great, as we are always backlogged at WP:GAN and any help is much appreciated. If you don't mind a little friendly advice though, bearing in mind the articles you've just nominated, I'm a little concerned that you don't yet have a strong grasp of the GA criteria and it might be better to take it a little slower and hold off on reviewing any more for the time being. Please don't take this personally, it certainly took me quite a while to get the confidence to review articles and even since then, it has been a learning process. Many editors find it easier to first develop an article to GA standard, and get their first nomination passed, before they move on to reviewing. Again, that's not required, just something to think about. Let me know if you have any questions.--BelovedFreak 21:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC) There is a thread at WP:ANI concerning you. Nev1 (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Re: GAN for Princes Street, DunedinHi Rcsprinter - don;t want to seem impatient, but I thought I'd better check to see whether you realised I asked you a couple of questions a few days back at Talk:Princes Street, Dunedin/GA1...? Grutness...wha? 00:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rcsprinter123, thanks for your nomination. You have several comments to address, and I think it'd be a good idea to withdraw the nomination so you can work on them before re-nominating. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The article New Mills you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold February 2011
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used. In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC) My talkpageRegarding this; two things. First off, I have a large notice at my talkpage essentially saying that it's a civility free zone; if you want to swear at me, that's perfectly fine (I don't speak like that off my talkpage, but I leave it open for people who are frustrated and want to have someplace to vent). The user I was responding to is someone I worked on NPP with for a long time, and someone who isn't bothered by swearing. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't censored; we have articles on several swear words, including the words cunt and fuck. Now if you don't like swearing, that's not a problem; in my communications with you, I will make it a point to avoid such language. However, please also respect my views on it as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Question about multipleissues tagHi! I noticed you recently tagged Bill's Bus with some concerns -- can you explain in more detail? I've worked on the article to make it sourced, factual, and neutral -- it's a small-town commercial service so it's probably never going to be a featured-quality article, but I think the article is reasonable as it is. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of BBC Radio 2Hello, I have noticed that there aren't any sources, citations nor references in these following sections: Presenters and programmes, Notable programming, Specialist programming, Past presenters, and Controllers only has one for one person. I am not currently reviewing this at this moment, I just wanted to give you advise before reviewing goes on for this article. If you can get those concerns dealt with, your article's chances at passing will be greater, thanks AJona1992 (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
MiszaBotGreetings, your config for MiszaBot was incorrect. I made the appropriate corrections, then moved your archive_2 and archive_3 contents into archive_1, which the misza bot will add other threads to probably in the next 18 hours or so. Your bot should be good to go. Should you have any questions, feel free to ask. I will watch your userpage for a couple of days if you wish to respond. Take Care!! -Pparazorback (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid - Plot
Redirects and other editsHello Rcsprinter123, why are you creating redirects such as Htrowlinek, Noitats sub Edyh and Strat-Pop? redirects are supposed to be alternative names for things, or alternative spellings, or common misspellings, to help readers easily find the article they are looking for. Do you really think people will be looking for Hyde bus station by writing it backwards? It seems like you are creating these redirects just because you can, I can't see that they serve any useful purpose, but I'm interested to hear your opinion before I tag them for deletion. --BelovedFreak 10:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Article layoutHi again :) Just a minor thing, but please check out the manual of style for article layout, especially the bits at the end as you seem to be rearranging navigation templates, external links, stubs etc so that they're in a different order. --BelovedFreak 12:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC) UK School Infobox Message added 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Thanks. TheAuthor22 [Talk] 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: Buxton Community SchoolHello Rcsprinter123. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Buxton Community School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Secondary schools are usually considered notable. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 17:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC) n find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC) MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Twenty-five-million poolWikipedia:Twenty-five-million pool, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Twenty-five-million pool and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Twenty-five-million pool during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Hi Rcsprinter123. I've had a quick look at New Mills. I will not be reviewing if it is renominated at WP:GAN in the near future, I tend not to do two reviews on the same article; someone else will probably do the review and they might look at the last review. The problem you have is that most of my comments have not been addressed, there is still a {{citation needed}} flag in the article and most of the references that use a web citation are still in "raw" format (I've changed ref 6 to what it should be, so that you can see) - that is not too difficult to update. Incidentally ref 20 is in the correct format, but the only thing on it (when I checked today ) was "This site is currently under development, please drop by again soon!" - so that does not provide any WP:Verification. I'm sorry, but I would not recommend resubmission in its current state - it could well be "quick failed", or failed. Pyrotec (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: Wren Park Primary SchoolHello Rcsprinter123, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wren Park Primary School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Erm....do you think you'll be able to get the references for this article? It's a big job and I note that you've not really edited this article before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Transport? Derby? New Users?I guees you know about this. Yiou do know they will open up the industrial transport bit just for us? I'd be surprised if they have no bus stuff, I ve seen tramway stuff in the stores. Be good to meet and there will be new wikipedians Victuallers (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Thats a pity, but pleased to hear of your interest. Maybe you could send a delegate/mate? Do feel free to load up some museum images. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC) -villagesAll towns and villages are considered suitable for individual Wikipedia articles. I am at a loss to know why you placed a transwikified speedy deletion tag on Ignacewo, Podlaskie Voivodeship -- where would it possibly be transwikified to? Perhaps you mean that there is an article in the Polish Wikipedia, but the English Wikipedia covers the entire world-- the only distinction between countries is that the articles here are written in English. (And, of course, that we do currently have fuller coverage of the English speaking countries--but that is something we try to remedy, not perpetuate. ) DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Maintenance tagsHello Rcsprinter123, I'm a little concerned by two of your recent edits. You added four maintenance tags to Wren Park Primary School. Fair enough, it needs references to secondary sources. I removed the WP:OR tag, as I don't think it's really necessary on top of requesting extra sources. There are only two sentences, and they don't strike me as original research, they are just not very well sourced. The article has a category, if you can think of any that are missing, wouldn't it be just as easy to add them yourself? As for the orphan tag, it's nowhere near being an orphan - did you look at the "what links here" page? Then, you added three tags to Grevillea centristigma. I left the orphan tag as, I believe, articles are considered orphans if they are linked to by less than three, although this is linked to by two other articles, so it's not a big problem. I have no idea why you added {{confusing}} and {{disputed}} though as you haven't explained them on the talkpage. As I can't see any reason the accuracy of the article would be disputed, and it doesn't seem confusing to me, I've removed the tags. If you still think they need to be there, please explain such tags on the article talkpage. It's ok to add a tag like {{unreferenced}} to an article that has no references, without explaining, becuase it will be obvious to another editor what needs to be done. If it's not obvious though, it's really helpful to explain why you tag an article on the talkpage. Otherwise, it just looks like random tagging. --BelovedFreak 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Pointless edits?Please explain how my edits to Chapel-en-le-Frith High School were pointless. You also might want to read WP:OWN. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Chapel-en-le-Frith High SchoolRcsprinter, Wikipedia is not a playground - please do not make further edits to school articles before you have read and fully understood WP:WPSCH/AG. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Your editingI've been looking at the rather long list of complaints and warnings on your talk page archive, and checking your editing logs. We certainly encourage younger editors to contribute to articles, but I really don't believe you are ready to start on work that needs a lot of experience, such as checking and reverting other people's work, or GA review, for example, or making redirects, or wanting to be an admin. Please consider taking some the advice you have already been given, check out all the hints and tips pages we have, and concentrate on editing and building your own articles for a while, and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Deletion tag removedI've removed the F5 speedy deletion template you placed on File:HenryFiteHouse.jpg because it's not a non-free image. Regards. Barret (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Hello Rcsprinter123, I just reviewed an article that you nominated for GA, Chesterfield. There are several things that need to be fixed, so I am putting this article "on hold". You can read my comments here.--12george1 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Good article reviewingHello Rcsprinter123, there's currently a discussion that mentions you at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. --BelovedFreak 08:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) InviteHi RCS - do you know about this. Last chance for some time to record the transport history in the silk mill, trolley buses? Victuallers (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC) April 2011
Re: Karl MarxThank you for the update! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) incorporating into the tubeI saw this. The best way to discuss these people is in chronological order in the history. Good start though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC) GAN reviewsHi, whilst I commend you enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I have noticed that you don't seem to have grasped the basic concepts of reviewing good article nominations. Your reviews are being discussed at WT:Good article reassessment#How to question the competence of a reviewer?. Might I politely suggest that you lay off for a while, perhaps follow other reviewers to understand how the process works? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC) WP:ANI discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding GA reviewing. The thread is Conduct of User:Rcsprinter123 when reviewing nominations for good article status.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:TOPICBAN. Thank you. —Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Re: Karl MarxNo worries, we all learn by trying. The beauty of the Wikipedia is that it will be here for ever, and it always allows people to try and help in various ways. I am sure in a while you'll master the reviewing process. Till then, you may want to join an active WikiProject and perhaps try your hand at the B-class reviews, for example? Those are less formal then GA ones. You may want to talk to some people about how they do B-class review first, to get a feeling for them. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Items removedelements cross-posted to User talk:Jdforrester and User talk:Rcsprinter123  Hi, Rcsprinter123, you'll likely not be pleased about this but I have suppressed a number of edits to your userspace which reveal too much personally identifiable information about yourself. I've done this per policy and for your own protection and safety on-line as you are a self-declared minor. I'm really sorry about that and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add it. For some useful information on privacy and safety, take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Thanks, and sorry for messing about with your pages - James F. (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer status revokedI've removed your reviewer status. Wikipedia:Reviewing contains guidelines on how to use this feature: it is intended for blatantly inappropriate edits rather than general reverts on editorial decision. You have repeatedly misused this feature to undo edits you simply disagreed with, including significant edits such as this one. If in future you feel that you are able to use this tool responsibly you may re-apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Seeking to adopt?I've just noticed that your user page has a userbox saying "This experienced editor is seeking to adopt new users". Unfortunately, I don't think you have anywhere near the expertise required to be adopting new users at the moment - in fact, I think you really need some mentoring yourself. I would hope that you would now be able to recognise this, and as part of a new commitment about your future editing here, I would hope you would agree to remove that userbox. (I know you can't remove it yourself at the moment, but if you ask, I'm sure someone will do it for you). Anyone agree or disagree? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, thanks. (Obviously I'd use your talk page to reply but, I can't.) I'm sorry about the navbox meat colour thing. It just looks more meaty! But I appreciate your patience in me. Even though I can't edit, I'm still logged in and looking through all the essays and things. Thanks again, and Jezhotwells too. RcsprinterGimme a message
Suffolk Bus routesSure I'd love to. Are you sure you want to do a whole Suffolk page though? In my experience I have found it much easier doing a particular town or a group of towns close to each other. It would be great if we worked together. Would you want to help me with the Colchester page and maybe together we will do the now deleted Lowestoft & Gt Yarmouth page again, huh? The only thing why I'm trying to convince you to change from all of Suffolk, is that a lot of the work is already done, as I have done an Ipswich & Woodbridge, and a Bury St.Edmunds & Newmarket page. Do you live in Suffolk? Tell me what you decide. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
And also, I forgot, don't include teeny weeny bus routes that do one run a week or one run a month or something like that. And never shorten operator names (I corrected it). Adam mugliston Talk 17:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)  It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Again Adam mugliston Talk 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2011
A new conceptHey Rcsprinter123. Mind if I introduce you to Revert, Block, Ignore? Psychologically, vandals are mucking up wikipedia for fun. The Revert, Block, Ignore process denies them of the fun as quick as possible. Why am I mentioning this? Well, an example has just come up. You tagged User:Mikeymand as blocked, even though he'd been quiet for a few weeks. That evening, my talk page was attacked. It's no big deal, but just something to keep in mind for the future. WormTT · (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Twi WikipediaOk, this is not directly relevant to the English Wikipedia, but why on earth have you created an article about WIlliam Shakespeare in English on a foreign-language Wikipedia? We have the English-language Wikipedia, we have the simple English Wikipedia, you really shouldn't add articles in English to other Wikipedias, even if they are pretty much defunct. Adding an interwiki link to it from our Shakespeare article is really not helpful to anyone either.--BelovedFreak 12:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC) You can't use G1 on pages in user namespace as they are specifically excluded. As such I've removed your CSD of the above page. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Signpost by mailHi Rcsprinter123, this is an interesting idea! Can you explain a bit more how it works (are you going to print out the PDF version? who is going to pay the postage?). And perhaps it should be clarified to which countries the offer extends. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Just typical isn't it...I'd just finished replying and I get a message. :P I've responded to your vandalism work and put up the test - I've been away for the bank holiday. One of your suggested vandalism points isn't vandalism, please try to be careful when labelling vandalism. WormTT · (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC) DYK nomination
I found two reviews of this book from The Times
Authors: Thorn, Michael Source: Times Educational Supplement, 20/09/2002, Issue 4499, p14, 1/2p, 1 Color Photograph Document Type: Book Review Subject Terms: BOOKS -- Reviews DOUBLE Fudge (Book) SNAGGLETOOTH'S Mystery (Book) MAGGOT Pie (Book) OPERATION Timewarp (Book) Abstract: Reviews several books on children's literature. 'Double Fudge,' by Judy Blume; 'Snaggletooth's Mystery,' by Gene Kemp; 'Maggot Pie,' by Michael Lawrence; 'Operation Timewarp,' by Kate Reid. ISSN: 0040-7887 Accession Number: 7518097 Database: UK/EIRE Reference Centre Authors: Davidson, Philippa Source: Times Educational Supplement, 15/04/1994, Issue 4059, p17, 1/4p Document Type: Book Review Subject Terms: CHILDREN'S literature BOOKS -- Reviews Abstract: Reviews several children's books. `White Feathers,' by Stephanie Baudet'; `Maggot Pie,' by Joan Carlyon; `The Skeleton Upstairs,' by Griselda Gifford; `The Yesterday Girl,' by Joan Carlyon; `Alvarez and the Golden Treasure,' by Val Reason; `The Breath of Demons,' by Stephanie Baudet; `Neptaur,' by Joan Carlyon; `For the Time Being,' by Kay Mac Manus; `Refugee,' by Maggie Paun; More. ISSN: 0040-7887 Accession Number: 9405193376 Database: UK/EIRE Reference Centre
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
How's it going?Hey Rcsprinter123, how's it going? I'm sure you know you've got a little over 4 hours to finish your final test - good luck with that. I'll have a look at the DYK you've dropped, see if I can give it that final push. Sorry about not being around to help sooner, I've been rather busy with that pesky real life. Hope all's well, let me know if it's not! WormTT · (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Well done indeed. I'd suggest I still hang around for a bit as a mentor, but from the work I've seen you do recently, you have improved massively. You've done a good job working on articles, even if they're currently looking like deletion possibilities. As long as you keep away from "reviewing" work I think you'll be able to function well on the encyclopedia. WormTT · (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Your signaturelinks to a user page of an unregistered user. Please link to your correct user name, lest someone decide to register "Rcsprinter" and effectively confuse everyone who clicks on your signature. And now you'll have to register that name yourself, so no one decides to do such a thing. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Careful with those parametersHi, this edit changed ten instances of Uckfield to Uckparameter. Haven't looked at your other edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Amersham stationI notice that you have moved this station to "railway station". However. "x station" is an established way of describing a station that has interchange facilities that mean it is both a National railway station and a station for another network (in this case the London Underground). You may wish to contact one of the railway projects (for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains) before you carry out a lot of edits that will, I fear, be reversed. Britmax (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Interchange symbolsHi, re edits like this - is it necessary to have the three symbols in the map and in the caption below the map in addition to the top line of the infobox? In the map, it's confusing because the casual reader may assume that one of the symbols, and not the red snooker ball, marks the position of the station. It's also getting very much into WP:ICONDECORATION territory. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
TalkbackMessage added 06:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Moray An Par (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Editor review and AfDsHeya Rcsprinter123. Firstly, may I apologise for not spending as much time with you since I began mentoring you, as I appear to have become very busy in general. As to your question on my talk page, during an editor review, users will hopefully dig deep into your editing history, and comment on what they see. I'd like to say that comments will be constructive and hightlight difficulties, but it does depend on the editor who performs the review. It is something that I think is very useful though, as it may highlight small mistakes you are making or ways to improve before they escalate into larger issues, such as the one we had previously at good article review. Secondly, I'd like to discuss the current issues on AfD. I see you've been closing debates as a non-admin. This is an area I've seen a lot of people trip up on in the past. Although admin status is "no big deal" and an experienced editor should be able to judge consensus, they additional "authority" of an admin on difficult debates - including AfDs - has become a de facto requirement of the community. In AfD, one of the main reasons for this is that only Admins can delete, and if they decide an article should be deleted the buck stops with them. (An admin who regularly deletes against consensus is likely to have their tools removed) So, Non-admin closures are allowed, but only in situations where there there is a CLEAR outcome, no possibility of arguments. Speedy keeps (according to the criteria) are also allowed. They must be marked as a non-admin closure though, as they could possibly be challenged. It's an area that I try to keep out of, as even our best non-admin closers come unstuck. If I were you, I'd stick to commenting on AfDs, making your voice heard - a much more important role, rather than the procedural close. Finally, I'd like to talk about your alternate account, Sprinting faster. I was vaguely aware of it (I think you commented on my page while I was away) but had forgotten to watch it. Can I ask why you felt the need to have an alternate account? I have one User:WormTT, because of my signature, but I've never felt the need to use it. There are very few reasons I can see for having an alternate account, and I was wondering what yours was. WormTT · (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Precise Point Positioning has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
Template talk:Welcome-anon-vandalHi, I noticed your edit request at Template talk:Welcome-anon-vandal and was wondering if there is a reason you did not just make the edit yourself. The template in question is only semi-protected, and your account should be able to make the edit. I don't see anything wrong with your proposal, I was just curious why you were doing it via request. Monty845 20:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC) New page patrollHi. I see you just patrolled Bill Moss,Jr.. Before passing any more pages as patrolled, please take a moment to read up on WP:RS and WP:BIO. Part, just a small part, of the work of page patrolling includes also checking the refs for reliability. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Barnstar
The Signpost: 4 July 2011
July 2011
Δ's removals are entirely appropriate and in compliance with WP:NFLISTS. Rcsprinter123, if you disagree with the removal engaging in discussion on the article's talk page is the way forward, not edit warring to your non-free content inclusive version. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this AN3 report. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Template parametersHow about taking all the [[]]s out of the template (maybe even going back to the original code minus [[]]) and putting the [[]]s on the transclusion like {{user creations|Box1-title2=[[donkey]]}}? —teb728 t c 11:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts on this image. However, it's not an acceptable use. Please see WP:NFLISTS #1. The problem in user created montages is that it does nothing to relieve the copyright burden. If I uploaded 12 images individually and posted them to the article, I would need 12 rationales to cover each use of each copyrighted item. If I instead create a montage of the same 12 images (as you did) I would still need 12 rationales to cover the use of the image. There's no reduction in copyright burden by merging all 12 images together into one; it's still effectively 12 images. File:Jiggy McCue books.jpg does not suffer such constraints. I've removed your user created montage, and replaced it with that image, tagging your montage as orphaned and disputed fair use. If you have questions, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:db-author-notice|Template:Astray/testcases|nowelcome=yes|{{{key1}}}={{{value1}}}}} Rcsprinter (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC) RENFE Class 350Hello, removing fields from an infobox can be helpful if they are superfluous, but if they are not filled in due to absense of information and could be completed later then it is counter productive to remove them eg your edit - for example "length" "width" "fuelcap" are all fields that would be expected to be completed at some point.Imgaril (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Editing other's commentsHi, it is generally considered bad ettiquette to edit others' comments as you did at User talk:Sitush. Good luck editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm using WP:LIVE SPELL. Just click and it does it. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Your editHi. Could you explain this edit? First of, that IS a bot that uses AWB (just because it does not have a bot flag DOES NOT mean it is not a bot, some bots don't have a bot flag), if you look in the AWB checkpage (whether it's in the users or bots list), you will see the bot there, and the BRFA is shown here (even if if did not have a BRFA, those tags would still be appropriate, although for it to be identified as a bot, it would need at least one BRFA, whether the BRFA was approved or denied). Second of all, it is my alternate account, and you must let me know you made the edit first, because to edit that page, you need my permission first. Finally, remember not to make a point. Oh yes, and if it was not intended to be a bot, it would be blocked for violation of the username policy. Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
TalkbackMessage added 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. — The Earwig (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
BotsHi Rcsprinter123, thanks for letting me know that Earwig is helping you out, I've seen some of their work and you've certainly got a very knowledgable bot worker there. Events have rather overtaken me as I've been snowed under since last Friday (sorry about that), so all I had time to do was to be coy about bots and suggest AWB. The fact is that I don't think a bot is right for you at all. You have to ask yourself why you want a bot. I have a feeling that you're looking for status or a way to easily "improve" the encyclopedia without doing much work. I have to warn you that a bot is a lot of work, writing code, debugging, monitoring all takes a lot of time and skill - it's not nearly as easy as the computer scientists make it out to be unless you are one of them. Trust me, I know, I've worked in the industry for years and the best coders are the ones who do make it look effortless, and it takes a very long time and a lot of knowledge to get to that level. It might be that you've got a great idea for work that needs to be done by a bot, and if you can explain it well, then a much better option is to ask a programmer to set their bot to do the work for you. If you're looking to learn about writing bots, then sure, learn away, write it in Perl or Python (or any other language). But don't forget you'll need to get it approved. As Earwig says, copyediting bots are not normally approved because they need to be watched by humans so they don't edit a quote or a template or something like that. Adding symbols would be much better done through something like AWB. You've been very vague and handwavy when it comes to what you want to do with a bot, which is useless for any person who wants to write a bot. You've been lucky, Earwig would know what questions you'd need to answer to be able to program it, but he isn't going to do it for you - he's said that very specifically. You'll have to learn how to write code and do the vast majority of the work yourself. He may be helpful and review your code, see where it's going wrong, but that will only come once you've written it. So, in summary, I think that your own personal bot is a bad idea unless you are looking to learn about programming. Spend some time reading up on AWB, talk to the person who declined you, explaining what you are planning to do with it and politely asking him to overturn it. AWB is the best option for you, in my opinion. WormTT · (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, on the topic of AWB, it seems that you have been doing too many controversial thinks semi-automatically. The AWB is for non controversial actions. If you are willing to use it under supervision I will grant it to you. Your supervisor should be someone you like and trust that already uses AWB and so know the rules. Let me know when you have a supervisor that can check what you propose to do before you let loose with it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Rcsprinter (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
RefimI saw you created Template:Refim as a redirect to Template:Refimprove. After you used it in one article. This redirect wasn't really necessary, and the article now uses the full template name. Perhaps you'd consider recommending Refim for speedy deletion with {{Db-userreq}}? Debresser (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Added rail symbol...Hey RCS....Why is the rail symbol added linking to Transport in London, regardless of location? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Adding symbolI see you are adding the code
private static readonly Regex Templ = Tools.NestedTemplateRegex(new List<string>("Infobox London station".Split(',')));
public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
{
Skip = false;
Summary = "";
foreach(Match m in Templ.Matches(ArticleText))
{
string TemplCall = m.Value, newValue = m.Value;
newValue = Tools.SetTemplateParameterValue(newValue, "symbol", "undergound");
ArticleText = ArticleText.Replace(m.Value, newValue);
}
return ArticleText;
}
In general if you want to make mass edits always contact WP:BOTREQ before to ask for advice. You can add more infobox names in the list above separated by comma.-- Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please review WP:AWB rules of use particularly item 4: this, this and this have no effect and so fall within "inconsequential edits". The rate that you are working at sometimes as many as five or six per minute) may also fall within rule 2. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC) hasty templatingHi there, The template that you placed on User_talk:Nickciob was over-hasty IMHO: he's a new user who's doing good faith edits. Please be careful with templates - they have been identified as a major factor in chasing away potentially productive editors. --Slashme (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
BobsCan you please tell me why you tagged my edits as vandalism on the article Bobs. I was reverting the edits made by 220.245.29.102 who changed the redirect to an article "Joxes" and I reverted it back to The Bobs (disambiguation) You then marked my edits as vandalism and posted a warning on my talk page SPARKZY 09:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Some completely random bus video for you!
AdoptionI would love to be adopted. I am very clueless as to what to do. Alpert1 (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Non-free files in your user space
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) {{subst:db-userreq-notice|User:Rcsprinter123/Coastliner 700|nowelcome=yes|{{{key1}}}={{{value1}}}}} Rcsprinter (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Other people's userpages.I fully grant that you had the best of intentions in removing sensitive information from userpages. However, I recommend that in future, you instead bring such information to the attention of someone with oversight privileges (there is a mailing list to which oversight requests can be made). I especially recommend that you use greater discretion in your choice of edit summary. Thank you. DS (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
E71 copyeditHi! I recently requested a peer review of the article and the reviewer pointed out that a copyedit would be necessary, so I'd like to thank you for copyediting the European route E71.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
hi I saw your messageyeah I'm fine with you moving it but could you just make a copy of it instead so the original can remain on my user page please i'd prefer it that way otherwise it will be a no but if you do it on those terms then I'll accept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace10000 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Coastliner 700
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
hi me again!you know that userbox i said you could use could you go on my talk page for me and post a link on there please so i can see my now official work in all its glory, id be very grateful if you did. yours happily, Ace10000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC). readyi'm ready for the next lesson obviously not the test though--Ace10000 (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
ATC code NHi! Could you clarify this edit? I don't think there need to be any more links (it's a list linking to all of its sub-lists), and I don't see any need for wikification. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I note your comments regarding this adoptee of yours; normally his last edit, which is clearly a disruptive threat, would qualify him for an indefblock, particularly as his edits to date have in any significant way enhanced the encyclopedia. I will send him a one-off warning, noting your concerns, but would feel a block mandatory if he does not provide a positive response. I sympathise with your unfortunate choice of adoptees, but we can only do our best to help new editors who request it. Please do not take it personally.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The actual time of the crash is on page 45 of this .pdf: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909256 which is also the cited source. Please do not revert (you are now at 4--have you read WP:3RR?) or claim vandalism where there is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.99.126 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 12 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: YGMHey. I discussed it with my fellow Signpostians last night, and we'd be happy to publish a piece along the lines suggested. However, we do feel that it could benefit from a stronger narrative e.g. about whether the results were as expected, any changes from previous periods, etc. We're happy to help with that, of course. Two weeks should give us long enough to sort out the first report :) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 08:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
News and progress from RfA reform 2011
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC). Hi Rcsprinter123. Please revert your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginsberg's theorem. The proponents of retention did not explain how the sources in the article constituted significant coverage as required by the GNG. Per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures, "Outcomes of the discussion that require an evaluation of all of the arguments relative to the policies" should not be closed by non-admins. Please self-revert and relist the discussion so other editors can weigh in about the sources. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Relisting debatesDebates like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesgrave Hall School shouldn't be relisted by a non-administrator in a controversal AFD such as that one. There is such thing as a no-consensus AFD. The only AFDs that usually get relisted are ones with one or two comments, or ones with absolutely no policy based comments, which this AFD doesn't qualify. I was a former adminstrator with four years of closing AFD debates, I should know. Thanks Secret account 18:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Opps forgot to mention don't close them as no consensus neither though u were kinda warned above. Secret account 19:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC) May I ask why you relisted this? It's not exactly short of arguments. And in fact, is there a particular reason you're relisting things as a non-admin anyway? I don't see anything in WP:NAC regarding relisting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
|
