User talk:RoadieRich

Welcome

Hello, RoadieRich, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Onorem♠Dil 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Helpme}}

Hello I am trying to update the pages relating to D.H Lawrence Heritage; as I work for the D.H Lawrence Birthplace Museum and Durban House Heritage Centre. However I want to change the title page of 'Durban House Heritage Centre' and I believe I need to move the page but I do not have access to this. Can you please help me?

Thank you

Paul Ceney

As you do have a WP:COI, it's better to get the move agreed - see Wikipedia:Rm#Requesting_a_single_page_move, to see how to add a requested move template to the current talk page.  Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: The Special Operations Forces Exhibition and Conference

Hello RoadieRich. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Special Operations Forces Exhibition and Conference, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. GedUK  18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kastle

I simply HAD to remove the bullshit, posing as a serious Wikipedia article! Check Richard Kastle on Wikipedia...find out the truth.

It's existence is all due to one Juri Koll, who has continuously screwed around with my own talk page.

If I canmot remove the ridiculous article, my friends will! Prof.rick 08:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want an article to be removed, mark it to be deleted. There are instructions available at Wikipedia:AFD. Blanking the page is vandalism, and does not help anything. Wikipedia works on consensus, not on one person's opinion. Nominating it under AfD will bring in other editors who do not have any connection to the article, and will therefore be able to look at the subject neutrally. You are, however going have to come up with better reasons than saying a well referenced article is "bullshit".

Rich^(Contribs)_{(Talk to me!)} 08:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BUT..whoever reads an article about Richard Kastle? Therefore, who would vote?

The vote is that it is automatically added to a page a large number of users look at. They will look at the article, and see if it should be deleted. Rich^(Contribs)_{(Talk to me!)} 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ctrl+Alt+Del

Good day, just to inform you I have contested the proposed deletion of Ctrl+Alt+Del due to the fact it would not be an uncontroversial deletion, and that I feel the scenario would benefit from gaining full consensus at Articles for Deletion. Additionally, the proposed deletion was contested in the past before I reviewed it, making it ineligible for the prod process anyway. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've contested it, if that's what you mean, the my edit before the one adding the prod was removing it. I've since realised that what I thought were grounds for contesting it we actually very much POV-based, as I stated in the discussion page. I felt that as I had inappropriately removed it, it would be acceptable to undo my edit, and therefore re-add it, per WP:IAR. If there were other contestations (is that a word? - OSX seems to think it is) previous to mine then feel free to ignore this. -- Rich^(Contribs)_{(Talk to me!)} 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there RoadieRich, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:RoadieRich/Ctrl+Alt+Del. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Skullptura

The article Skullptura has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not speedy deletable, but it may not be notable and is poorly sourced.

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 {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of Ghits here. 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My review of your work

Hello RoadieRich,

In the Editor Review request page, I founded your request. Doing a lot of vandalism recovery myself, I accepted to review what you did.

In brief, you are doing great. Sure, nobody is perfect, but overall, your work of cleaning Wiki from vandalism is good.

For an article like Oakland Alternative High School, you did not stop at the first recovery after the blanking, but also recovered more vandalism hidden under the first case. Doing that, you founded many vandalism by the same user and flagged him right to the admins for what he deserved : to be blocked. You did the same kind of recovery for Malachi Smith.

This deep investigation is very important because once vandalism is hidden under anti-vandalism recovery and / or good faith edits, it is much more difficult to find and recover. That's why every recovery needs to be complete the first time. Should you have a point to improve, it would be that.

Here is an example : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malachi_Smith&action=historysubmit&diff=342657206&oldid=161359749

That's the diff between your last recovery of Malachi Smith and an older version. The only difference is a spam link in the recovery you approved as good. In fact, that spam link was added LONG LONG time ago, and survived until today. (I let you clean it yourself).

Such text should not be in the article. First, article must never use --I-- or --You-- ; only the third person. Also, if an official website can be used as a reference, it should be listed in the appropriate section and not advertised in the middle of the article.

Here is another one, bigger than the first : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oakland_Alternative_High_School&action=historysubmit&diff=342656922&oldid=340702442

Your last version, the one by Cluebot, contains more vandalism.

As an help for finding this kind of vandalism, here is my trick : After the first, obvious recovery, you go in the history of the article. You first check the few firsts un-reverted reviews. You may have to go back 20 changes down for finding 3 un-reverted edits. Once done, you go even deeper and search for what looks like a few good faith edits. Because they did modify the article with good faith, there is a much better chance that they left a clean article behind them. Compare the oldest of these good faith edits with your last recovery and look for damage. When you found some after good faith edits, most time you have to fix it manually instead of using Twinkle.

It is with that technique that I founded the spam link on your recent edit as well as the rest of the vandalism.

In the second example, the one about Oakland school, the vandalism was done by one of the culprits you identified. That's another point to look for in the history. Now that you know one as a vandal, you have to search for him more than any other. You can do it in two ways. First, by looking for him in the history of the article where you founded him first, and second, in the list of his contribs.

By flagging problematic cases to the admins, by cleaning articles and by warning users who did wrong, you are doing a great job and provide a significant help in cleaning Wikipedia. You can improve by looking deeper for vandalism, and not only will you found more, but you will clean what is the most difficult to clean.

Keep up the good work and I will be pleased to help you should you need anything.

Heracles31 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tracie_Spencer and User_talk:68.108.84.91

I assumed it was a vandalous edit because almost all of the user's other edits were vandalous. And he has made edits with a pattern very similar to a banned user named Snuffereet and his sockpuppets (which I assume he is one of). And the warning was for all of his vandalism, not just that on the Tracie Spencer article. For example, these edits, which are almost identical to the ones Snuffereet and his sockpuppet accounts did several times before. [1], [2], [3].

--Celtic Jobber (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for restoring my talk page. Strange, looks like some insane robot was taking chunks out of it. Rothorpe (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of page by author

The article Arunima jha was blanked by its author after being tagged for speedy deletion. You then reverted the blanking, and warned the user about removal of the speedy deletion tag . While it is normally considered unacceptable for the author of a page to remove a speedy deletion tag from it, an exception is made in the case of completely blanking a page to which nobody else has made any significant contribution. This is taken as indicating that the author wants the page deleted, and it can then be tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-blanked}}. (In Twinkle this shows up as G7 Author blanked.) Very often new users who don't know how Wikipedia works see an article they have created tagged for deletion, accept that the article should be deleted, and remove the content, thinking that is deleting it. It is much better in such a case not to bite the newcomer by giving them a warning that they have done something wrong by trying to comply with the deletion notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Funeral

Thanks! I don't ask to delete pages very often and wasn't paying attention. Believe me, there was considerable cursing after I figured out what I had done. The related page will also have to be deleted as well, Thanks! --Hourick (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lace Market Theatre logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Lace Market Theatre logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fluent interface may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s and 6 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday!

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, RoadieRich. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Zai ^(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 13:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

until we see you again