This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ronhjones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
But you still have 9000 non automated edits - editors will like that.
Editing time here 8.5 months - you will find some opposition while under a year I think.
Article talk edit only 384 (0.95%) - editors do like to see a higher score to show interaction with other users in building a consensus to a page content.
Hope that helps you a bit. Also have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/5_albert_square - up for election now, she's a little similar to you, but has been editing for 2 years, and has a bit more content editing. I'm sure you enjoy the vandal fighting (I do), but also try to have a look at editing some pages that you have an interest in - my non vandal work is often around UK waterways, mainly because I've been using them for so long and had my own boat since 1989; plus any chemistry article that I see needs a tweak, since that's my line of work. Ronhjones (Talk)01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ron. Will you please comment here? Also, I lost rollback after an ANI incident. I currently do other stuff on Wikipedia now such as new page patrolling. I need more experience in order to become an admin. WayneSlam22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Lemuel Royce
Hello, You just deleted Lemuel Royce just as I was trying to add a "hang on" tag. This article about a long-living Revolutionary War officer was speedied by Toolsavoid e, a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Perhaps you can restore the article and we can see if it is worth saving? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I will do a little research to see if there are any reliable sources, other than the geneological notes I see at first glance. By the way, I asked the administrator who blocked the sockpuppet to take a look as well. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The outcome is not important and this is certainly no boast, but I believe I may have you beat. I don't know how to determine the percentage, but the figure bandied about at my RfA was ~90%. The "anti-automated" school was much stronger in the year(s) that preceeded my RfA and I was greatly influenced to let my candidacy be put forward by the many voices saying otherwise in the weeks immediately preceeding my nom. I have not expressed an opinion at RfA because I believe it detracts from the proceedings; I beleive my HG use conveys my opinion, more or less. Anyhoo...thanks for all your hard work...see ya 'round Tiderolls22:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
sir yesterday an article penned by me on veteran Indian journalist mukut anti saha was deleted and the reason behind the deletion was stated as -copyright infringement .the article on wordpress has been linked with the wiki posts and thats the reason why it seemed to be a copyright infringement. its clear enough that the wiki article was penned before the wordpress article. how can it be copyright infringement a on earth.please do the needful to restore the same. thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webfxin (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see they both have a similar creation date of 5th Feb - so you cannot claim "its clear enough that the wiki article was penned before" with the Wikipedia page created at 19:35. The page at wordpress has now changed, so I cannot re-check the time (if a time was given), although Google is still showing the text. However the page here has been re-created as Mukut kanti saha, so there is no point in restoring the old one. Ronhjones (Talk)17:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
My comment was just about the unblock request - 12h was a bit short. Anyway, give them enough rope and they will hang themselves in the end... :-) Ronhjones (Talk)17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Essex
Hello,
We noticed that you are from Essex. We are taking this opportunity to invite you to join WikiProject Essex. WikiProject Essex is a collaboration of users who are interested in improving the quality of all of the articles on Wikipedia about Essex. If you are interested, please feel free to add you name to our list of contributors.
i post up about an artist, all are correct and i am confussed to how i can get the article about an artist stay on the site? i supplied the referances and links to the artist, her name is Mazryah (Taziri) Soltani
this what i write for her:
Born March 4th 1975, to parents who came from Aures Algeria. Mazryah studied sciences in the USA. She started her love or art, singing, and writing at an early age. She has written many poems, songs and taken many photos about the Aures. Her love and ambition of the people of North Africa Amazighen thrives her to continue her art. She also paints as well and a humanitarian to help the poor people in donations of eye glasses, diabetes testing machines, and medications back in Aures. Her goal is to help educate the world that there are strong Amazighen women who contribute to society and help keep the culture of the Chawi. She travels between the Aures, Paris, and USA frequently, and takes every opportunity to write, paint, or take photographs to document her adventures and the people she meets along the way in her life time.
I am writing you after being informed by someone that they had posted my bio information for consideration in Wikipedia. I understand that you felt that the posting was a copyright infringement, and I am writing to say that I would be honored to be included in Wikipedia. As the person responsible for the accuracy of the content in the bio submitted, I wold like to see it included if at all possible on Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what I should do to put to rest any concern you may have about infringement.
I do not seem to understand how to properly notify you, so I apologize if this post is a repeat. But, I am writing to inform you that I have sent the email as requested. You asked that I notify you when this was done.
Have you seen OTRS ticket 2011020310016613, complaining of the copyright violation? I very much doubt there can be any fair use rationale here. Please advise how to solve this issue based on the inquiry to OTRS. Asav (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
We cannot see OTRS tickets. All fair-use could be called a copyright violation - it's the use of copyright material under a fair use rationale - and certain items of data have to be supplied. They were supplied in the description, but not in the standard format - so I re-grouped them appropriately. Also the logo was too big for fair-use (over 300px is too big), so it got resized as well. If you think you can show a specific reason why it fails WP:NFCC - then you can use detail your reason(s) with by applying a {{subst:dfu|reason}} template to the page. It may also be argued (although no one has yet) that the logo may not be copyrightable as it consists solely of text - i.e. there is zero artwork. Ronhjones (Talk)16:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I obviosuly can't quote the OTRS case, as all communication with OTRS is by nature confidential. I must ask you NOT to delete copyvio-tags that are directly based on OTRS procedures unless you have access to the relevant queue and communication. What I'll do is reinstate the copyvio tag, but contact an admin with OTRS access to review the case. I presume that's the most constructive way to solve the matter. Asav (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Jay Weigel here, I have sent the email in reference to the article posted about me. You mentioned I should leave you a note so that you could restore it for OTRS permission ticket to be applied.
Hey. You recently speedily deleted the Eugenie Bouchard article (and its redirect Eugénie Bouchard) as G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). However in the time after that AfD was closed as delete (on Jan 31), Eugenie won a $25,000 ITF Women's Circuit tournament, the 2011 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles (on Feb 6) which, under criterion number 5 of WP:NTENNIS means that she passes notability. (This official source from the tournament can prove that, as well as this article from the sports campus and this one from the Montreal Gazette prove). Due to the quick turn around time between these events I can easily see how you may have accidently over looked this, or that it had not been updated to her page. I am requesting that you restore both, and I will ensure that her win is noted, and the sources, added so that the article passes Wikipedia guidelines.
I have restored, added a hang on and your comments to the talk page - I'm not a Tennis expert, so now there is a hang on, we can let the experts decide. Ronhjones (Talk)01:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It should still be deleted with the original deleted by cirt brought back from the dead. And your an admin yes. So why can't you follow this rule, instead of bringing back articles which should not had been created in the first place. It would have saved all our time if one user had asked Cirt to restore. But no and now it's a right pigs ear. Congrats KnowIG (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Right it's back up for deletion and I will delete every single version of it unless the original is restored. So go and ask Cirt and he will restore it.
I was asked to restore a specific version, if they had asked me to restore the previous one, then I would have done so. The editor claimed the version I deleted was the one they wanted, and they would add the new data to it. Ronhjones (Talk)21:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyway - BOTH versions have been restored as one, which nicely allows full attribution to all editors - if you want to see part of the earlier version then just view the history (on and before 16:45, 31 January 2011). Ronhjones (Talk)22:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It had a PROD template placed on it by User:GrapedApe with the comment NN office building. No sources to establish notability. Being a 20 story building doesn't confer automatic notability. The original author User talk:Conk 9 was notified at that time (in fact there's a whole batch of templates been placed there). If no-one removes the PROD or edits the page within 7 days, then it gets deleted. Ronhjones (Talk)21:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Brazilian Banana Party Page Deletion
I noticed you had deleted the Brazillian banana party page and I wanted to know what would qualify it as worthy. It may be fictional, but it is significant because of Tãio the monkey, who ran for mayor of Rio de Janeiro in 1988
There were no reliable sources to back up the article - essential for such an unusual article
It obviously wasn't notable according to Wikipedia's policies
If you think you can improve the article up to policy standard within a reasonable amount of time, then I can restore it as a subpage of your user space for you to work on - (WP:USERFY) - if you want. Ronhjones (Talk)21:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ron, I'm back for your help again! I've just been able to get a copy of the Crest to add to the 'CUSACK' article. Having loaded into Wiki I cannot get it to appear in the Crest section. Regards from a wet Cotswolds C.Cleeve (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Has the wikiquote and free software portal way to the right, from a ui aspect maybe they should be to the right as my 1920x1200 display I did not see them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilee (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Tropical Depression 14F (2004), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I suspect you might have been able to have done the move yourself - I think admins are only necessary when it's been deleted already. Ronhjones (Talk)23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Reehal
Dear Sir,
You have deleted my page and that I accept; my misunderstanding of the intent of wiki. I am now reverting to building a blog to launch the history. Therefore please could I have my text back - it took ages!
I googled Jason Evert today and was glad to see he had a wikipedia page, but when I clicked over, got the A7 message that you had deleted the page a few days ago (February 10th, 2011). I disagree with the deletion under A7 - does not satisfy notability - because Jason Evert is a very well-known chastity speaker throughout the United States, and I'm sure other parts of the world as well. Besides having almost 1000 Twitter followers, Jason has published a series of books, including If You Really Loved Me, Purity 365, Theology of His/Her Body, Romance Without Regret, Raising Pure Teens, etc. You can find all these books on Amazon. Jason and his wife Crystalina not only speak to over 100,000 teens internationally each year, they are also full-time apologists on Catholic Answers. You can learn more at http://www.chastity.com/node/442.
All of the above seem to make him pretty notable. ... Would you consider un-deleting his page?
But none of those references make him notable, as per Wikipedia's policies. There are no verifiable, reliable sources, and at least one is mandatory for a new BLP. Twitter does not count, nor do references to small sites. If you had an account, I could userfy it for you to improve, as it is, there's not a lot I can do. Ronhjones (Talk)22:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved it myself
Yes, thank you for checking in. It was a bold step as I feared losing it in some rabbit hole.
If I get stuck developing the page may I contact you? (We're both Brits:)
Monsoonique (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
All admins are here to help if we can. Though I'm not the best prose writer - you look better than me! or you can just put the <{{helpme}}> on Talk:Christopher Hills - rather than your own talk page. I've put a couple of WikiProject banners on the talk page - I hope they are OK with you. Sometimes the WikiProject talk pages can be used to start discussions about articles - you will find more like minded people there. Ronhjones (Talk)01:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Check "my preferences" - Gadgets tab - have you got the "refTools" ticked? I suspect not - I don't know why it's not set as default - it gives you another button which is far better for adding books and journal references - I use it all the time for journals, I just put in the DOI link, click the green square and most of the fields get filled. I think one can do similar with ISBN numbers in books. Ronhjones (Talk)01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Reehal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Just to follow up with my request to delete a user talk page under an older username. In reference to WP:U2, do you know what a reasonable amount of time would be to keep the redirects? I'm trying remove my old name from WP for privacy reasons. Thanks. Halda (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Not much help with the guidelines! I would guess one of the reasons is to stop vandals "name hopping", and there not being a talk page left to post warnings to. On that basis, I think it's been long enough and it's gone. Ronhjones (Talk)20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You indefed Jess567, but your block message is for a temporary block. Not sure which you meant, but one of those has to be wrong.—Kww(talk) 01:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
In the Early life and Career section of Peter Edwards (artist)I have added a ref to a Robert Baugh which brings up a very long link to his obit in the Gentlemans Magazine (Harvard library). It looks long and ungainly. Could I have done it better?--Hughlay1407 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughlay1407 (talk • contribs)
Done - 2 things...
When yor track something down in Google, there's a lot of unwanted "stuff" in the url - basically your route to the page, above the text there is a "link" button - that's trims it down to a minimum.
Make sure you have refTools on in your preferences in the gadgets - you get an extra button that has the word CITE in the middle - that makes it easier to add refs for books and journals (this one was a journal, as it had volume and part numbers. Also makes it much easier to ensure all the possible fields can be used.
The lack of a title made the link show in the refs section - if adding a simple link, always add a space after the url and then a title - the title will then show, and not the url.
It does and I'm very grateful. Any chance you'll be at the Royal Society of C Summer Ball July 12?--Hughlay1407 18:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it - weekends in the summer are usually taken up by canal boating, so relaxing..., and an expensive hobby - so you have to make the most of it! Assuming we get a summer this year... Ronhjones (Talk)20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Bodyscapes rainjacket
JR (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Jay R23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) I merely added a certain genre of raincoat. Can you explain to me why that was inappropriate?
How did you get your signature to be like that, I mean, I want to customize mine and make it a different color or something, but I dont know how. XavierAJones (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Trial and error! The full sig in the prferences page looks like this...
If you do one of these you must tick the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup"
In order my sig is
Start bold
Start Link [[User:Ronhjones then a pipe | (pipe in a link means you "see" the right hand side, but the page link is the left hand side)
The span defines the border (1px wide), border colour (black), padding (1px gap from letters to border), background (yellow)
Then the font colour (note have to use US spelling of color) is green
Then non breaking space and Ron
Then next font colour of red and the middle h
Clever bit, close font, means the green one is still active, so add jones and a space
Close font and span and finish the link and end bold
Then there's a superscript plus a link to talk page with pipe so only (talk) shows
Close superscipt and all done
There is a limit of about 250 characters, so it's all too easy to run out of space, I did try for 8 different colour letters, and failed!
I created my own sandbox and kept trying in that, until I got it correct.
I found (much later) that if you split your name (like I do) then it's much harder to search back for an old contribution in a talk page - I was looking for an old edit at my RfA, never found it.
I want it in New Times Roman, Xavier written in the color black, A written in the color red, and Jones in the color black. All highlighted in the color Gold. XavierAJones (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing on the talk page to change the outcome. The article was deleted before on the 12th January, following a proper AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giridharilal_Kedia, this version was tagged for deletion as "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". The newly created article does not really expand on the original one of the 12th January - if fact it is significantly smaller.
I would suggest that you let me userfy the article for you and you can then work on it in your user space, until it is of significantly improved not to fail WP:CSD#G4 again. As you already have OTRS, I can restore the full history, so you may merge data from any of the three versions that were deleted. Alternatively you may decide to go for deletion review.
Hi Ron - I work for an organisation called Children of Fire www.firechildren.org. I attempted to create a wiki page for the organisation yesterday. I see you deleted it. I don't really understand why this was done. Perhaps you can explain. Many thanks. Robyn Aris robyn.creer@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynaris (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Having said that there are very specific ways that such material can be used, and a full read of the page at donating copyright material is suggested - noting that if you go down this route, then you wave your copyright goodbye, as Wikipedia material can be used anywhere in the world for any purpose (even commercial).
Also I note from your text that you work for the organisation - creating pages for "work" is strongly discouraged - please have a read of the conflict of interest guideline, before you write anything else about the organisation. Note that you never own a page here, any editor is likely to come along and re-edit the page, and you are not allowed to revert it back to keep a "static" page.
I hope that answers all your questions, sorry if it has created more issues, but we have to ensure that the policies apply equally to all editors. Ronhjones (Talk)20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ron, I see you have got involved in the deletion discussion on this article. I found several on the day that I edited it, that were marked as needing references to prove notability. Most of them were about subjects that did not appear to have any obvious sources to confirm them, but this one did, so I added eight references as a start. I suspect that Katie allana, the original author, was totally baffled by the tags appearing on her first article. I have recently been helping another new editor (who has a PhD in historical research) who was equally baffled by such tags appearing, and had no idea what to do about them. Hence Katie allana has asked for the article to be deleted without providing any valid reason. I was going to drop a note on her page to explain what the original tag meant, to say that I had added some refs, and that she might like to try adding some more. Sadly, I didn't get round to that final part before I had to stop to go on a business trip. In the meantime, other tags have appeared.
The current tag says I can remove it, and might like to consider improving the article to address the issues raised. I thought that was what I had done. The tag said it needed refs, and I provided eight. When I get time, I could easily add more. I wondered if you had any comments before I remove the tag. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Bob, Minor involvement as an admin - User:Katie allana (who started the article), keeps asking for deletion - I've refused, as an author can only do that when the content is substantially added by them - in this case not.
As regards the tags, there were two added - a general notability tag early, on 9th Feb by User:Lainestl, then you edited, but didn't remove that tag, then User:Banaticus added the PROD tag (possibly to assist User:Katie allana - looking at the reason). Anyone can object to a PROD by removing the tag (Item 2 at WP:PRODIf any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed., Once a PROD is removed, then the only way it could be deleted is to go for a full WP:AFD. If you are happy with the bits you added, then remove the tags saying you object to the deletion, and intend on making more improvements. Ronhjones (Talk)00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Rohn--what did they do that was so bad? Simply adding content without reliable sources? I'm asking because that's usually not seen as vandalism, and users don't often get blocked unless there's blatantly false info. I'm asking also because I just chided User:Bonusballs for leaving yet another vandalism template (clearly, the IP hasn't learned...). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please help to delete a page that you have redirected which is "Weqaya takaful" and redirect all related pages to "Weqaya".
I had created Weqaya takaful by mistake, and unfortunately all related pages which are "Weqaya Insurance" and "Weqaya Takaful Insurance and Reinsurance Company" are currently redirected to "Weqaya Takaful".
Therefore, I will be too grateful if you could help me to delete "Weqaya takaful" page and Keep "Weqaya" page as the main page that "Weqaya Insurance" and "Weqaya Takaful Insurance and Reinsurance Company" are directed to.
I have never edited a protected page before, I'd like to help clean up the article further. Per your comment this should be done on the talk page. How do things get moved from the talk page to the actual article? Do I need a special tag so an admin can move it over or something?
Start a new section (two equal signs each end of a title on its own line), then ideally suggest some edits, and if most people agree then copy this - {{editprotected}} - to that section , and an admin will come along and do the edit for you. Ronhjones (Talk)23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dr.Ron,
I am sorry to bother you but I really need your help. I have a problem with this user andyjsmith that is constantly trying to get this page (Ramadan Ramadani) off from Wikipedia. I added the proper bio and soon I will add more photos and material to the page if that user doesn't delete the page. I don't really understand why he is so against it. I saw many artist that are not worldwide famous but they are on Wikipedia and I honestly believe that that is exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. I am not putting any Spam or inappropriate content.
Some editors have a clear view of how good an article should be to survive on Wikipedia. Generally that's not a bad thing, otherwise we would be overrun with useless articles. New articles are always difficult to construct (and probably harder than in the past), and it does not take long for someone to see a new page and decide that the content is not enough (that's why many editors now start a new article in their user space, only moving to article space when suitable). I declined the original CSD, as I could see that you were still editing and improving the article, since then User:Andyjsmith has added a PROD template (he cannot delete it himself), but you have almost doubled the article size since then - so if you think that what you have added will be enough to satisfy notability (have a look at this paqe section - WP:ARTIST) then you are quite within your rights to remove that template (the first four lines you see in the edit window), and state that the article is significantly improved since the template was added. You may also like to talk to User:Andyjsmith on his talk page and ask him what more he would like to see - that may save you a lot of effort. If you do remove the PROD, it cannot be replaced, any future deletion request would probably have to go through WP:AfD process. Ronhjones (Talk)23:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, it worked. Normally I would be able to move a picture with no problems, but this time I did and I couldn't figure it out. If there is anything I can do in return just ask on my Discussion page. Once again it's appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the lock on Jane Russell was automated or not, but I believe the recent changes in the article are due to the fact that Russell recently died ([1]. Perhaps you may want to open the page again for editing. --Zimbabweed (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There was lots of unreferenced data added - if you have a good WP:RS then place your data on the talk page with {{editprotected}} and someone will come along to check. Ronhjones (Talk)00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you fully protected this article, can you please help add {{recent death|Russell, Jane}} to this article? Many thanks. – SMasters (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm Chris, the guy who you deleted the attack page about earlier today. Thank you so much; I wasn't aware of it until someone e-mailed me about it. Again, thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.68.5 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to request that my page regarding the myth of Michael Lloyd Roberts is reinstated as it is a genuine article, I would appreciate if it could be reinstated I understand the problems that you may come across with such articles but this is about a myth not an individual and has no personal reference or attacks within it.
You are a true wiki legend
ps I very much enjoed you page on, teaching grandmothers to suck eggs.
You deleted my page despite the fact that I had a hangon. I asked the person who said delete it what policy it was violating and he couldn't tell me. Can you please? Fouredits (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Insufficiency of sources establishing notability goes to AfD. CSD is only for articles that are not notable on their face. Fouredits (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Non-notablity of a person, you, who only had two edits prior to the creation of this article, is prima facie evidence of lack of notability. Corvus cornixtalk00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Also not it's not your page - no one owns any page here, the user pages are just for the users to give a bit of background about themselves should they desire. Ronhjones (Talk)01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks?
Ron,
Is it a good thing you touched my page?
In my first few hours I've already attracted more attention to myself than I wanted.
I used the question mark for the last title since I didn't see any reference as to why you left the note. If you copied the page for me thanks.
- Jeff (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I am writing to you regarding the recently deleted article, Argentine people of European descent, because I believe you were misled into deleting it by someone who jumped to certain conclusions without really looking into the matter.
It's a long story, but it dats to February 11, when a related article, White Argentine was deleted by Beeblebrox (see: [2]) because of what he felt constituted a "synthesis" based on a social construct (i.e, "white" people). I excised any such language, and any inference thereof, keeping only the history, data, and their references.
I wrote to Beeblebrox about all this. He skimmed the surface of my article, noticed that it looked similar to the one that had caused so much offense, and put it on the chopping block, responding simply that: "a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article" (see: User talk:Beeblebrox#Speedy deletion). As an administrator, he should know that this is a very arbitrary, almost capricious way of using his power. I, by the way, did not contact ou as I don't see how any of this was your fault; you simply noticed a speedy deletion tag and acted accordingly.
In any case, I was asked to mention the problem to the Deletion review board. As I told Beeblebrox, I hate all this. I was writing an article about a major political party in Argentina which lacked an English-language page, and would already be done had it not been for this, for example. I'm sure you feel the same way.
I'd really appreciate it if you would knock of the whole "abuse of power" argument. I did not use any admin tools here, I nominated the article for speedy deletion, something anyone can do. It's not an order that must be obeyed. Ron or any other admin could have declined the nomination if they thought it was flawed. There is also the matter of attribution that was brought up at ANI, you are obviously re-working an old version of the article without giving proper credit to those whose work formed the foundation of your alleged "new" article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Please revert it back to the db template, as the author clearly intended to blank the page, and only now has information due to the editing of another editor, in contradiction to G7. 128.61.18.21 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There may be too many other edits from other editors to allow him to blank the page or apply db-author anyway, if may have to go via a different CSD or PROD or AfD. Ronhjones (Talk)23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably not, since the major author User:Abc1233ac is the only supplier of content, while all the other editors made only grammatical/minor edits. In one of the previous edits, the main author left it 13:17, 5 March 2011, without adding any more content, compared to the continuous changes that occurred over the past few hours. Then, another editor User talk:Fairtraderrr comes and restored the page contrary to G7, which was added as the page was blanked.128.61.18.21 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
What I tried to add to the on hold messaging section is 100% true. Yet, it seems that only companies who know how to BS are worthy to make it into WP. It's sad to know that WP will not acknowledge my contributions to this industry. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.62.65 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you unprotect Pedro de la Rosa? Your stated reason for indefinite semi-protection was "IP hopping vandals" but there has been no vandalism to the page since at least August 2010. Did you protect this page by mistake? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Not so, the same group of IPs hit it on 16th February - WP:DUCK on the edits, similar ones appear on other articles - still I've not problem unprotecting, but they might be back. Ronhjones (Talk)20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, how about the rest of them? Indefinite protection surely isn't justified just in case one vandal might come back some time. If anything it's more work for you as you have to unprotect manually rather than e.g. letting a week-long protection expire. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Just lazy me :-) Mind you we don't know it's one vandal - it might be a concerted effort. Indef is the default. I'll get round to trim them back after I've finished checking all the years (I only did 15 years checks last night 1990 to 2004 - IIRC). Ronhjones (Talk)20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The establishment of a (scientifically accepted) new research field is certainly an indicator of importance in science. The request for speedy deletion according to Wikipedia:CSD#A7 by Terrillja was unreasonable as importance has "a lower standard than notability". Of course, professors are not notable by default, but I already added some references which show the notability. Blauenfels (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Blauenfels, the joy of Wikipedia editors working together... Such a nice feeling, if only it could be sustained throughout WP. Ronhjones (Talk)19:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Re:Scott Redding
Can't say I'm all that surprised, to be honest! Yep, had a read at the comment over the IP copyright earlier on...seems a weird one. But as you say, it may be tampered with when the protection comes off. Still a bit to wait until that occurs though! Cs-wolves(talk)20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer... I have completed the source= section as per your suggestion. Can i remove that speedy deletion tag now? or do i need to ask the dude who put it there to remove it? I wish more admins on Wikipedia are helpful like you! Okkar (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Once you filled in the required fields, the the DI template can be removed. I've done that for you. As to if the copyright "experts" will like your source, I'm not saying - image copyright can be a real minefield, and is also very country dependent (I'm happy with UK situation, but the US does have some oddities...) Ronhjones (Talk)20:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello. You are my unblocking admin and I'd like to invite you to express your opinion at the following discussion: [4]. I've made a report against User:Nmate 's behaviour, but he did not respond the issues raised by me, preferring to attack your unblock decision, together with (his partner) User:Hobartimus
Instead of accepting that I am again a member of the community, they keep disregarding me and contesting my unblock (instead of WP:LETGO). I've tried to respect all the policies since I became again a member of the community in December 2010, but they keep writing about my old socks in every discussion we participate, thus breaking WP:HUMAN (in my case, unblocked users are human too). (Iaaasi (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC))
Ron can you help?
Hi Ron -
You helped me last year with my organizations page Parents Via Egg Donation. I got into a pickle editing it and not realizing it was against the rules. You folks heard my case and were kind enough to unblock me from Wikipedia, and I was thankful for that.
Since that time we have been gathering information about the organization (as requested by Toons one of Wiki's editors) which appeared in the media for the reference section. Our page received a tag of orphaned which made me nervous as I feel our nonprofit is Wiki worthy, and has encyclopedic value. However, my hands were tied as I am not allowed to add anything to that page.
In the meantime we found a user who took an interest in our group who is a writer and wrote a lovely bit of information about us. And now our page has been deleted. Even after this user followed the rules.
I am asking for you help in sorting this out. I do believe we are Wiki worthy, we helped thousands and thousands of people each year in the field of Reproductive Endocrinology. We are not self-serving if anything we are a public service organization much like the American Heart Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, INCIID, or RESOLVE but on of course a much small level.
I appreciate your time - Marna Gatlin
MDG 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnad1963 (talk • contribs)
Sigh... It's always difficult for organisations to keep their page, so many end up with a "advertising" tag. I see several choices...
Talk to both the deleting admin User:Martijn Hoekstra and maybe (but see next comments) the editor who placed the CSD User:XiaXia11, and ask them what was so bad about it that they needed to delete it. Ask what they would change to allow it to stay. You may want to point out to the admin that adding the CSD tag is this only edit User:XiaXia11has ever made, and I do wonder if this is some WP:SPA, of someone who does not like your organisation - he created the account 7 minutes before applying the CSD tag - NO new user would know how to do that! Ronhjones (Talk)00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Ask your writer to ask me to userfy the article - I can then make it a subpage of that editor, he can then use any comments you obtain from the above editors to improve. Also one can get a review of the page before moving it back to an article.
Greetings! I am very interested in the organization Parents Via Egg Donation and would like to get the PVED article on the right track. There appears to be some enemies of the organization that are making this very difficult. Do you have any suggestions? In particular, I am interested in non-profit organizations as a whole getting a fair shot at wikipedia! I thought an "in the news" section might be appropriate to incorporate news articles. Thanks!
Andie-Portland (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Andie-Portland
I'm glad to see the page is back. One useful page to read may be WP:ORG - which deals with organisations and companies. I would be wary of news - see WP:NOTNEWS, since most "news" may not be significantly referenced for inclusion, and also that there is already a sister project for news - Wikinews.
See if you can link the page to an exiting WikiProject - then you can discuss the page with like minded editors, who can better assist you. I would ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine if they think the page should be included in their Project. If so you add {{WPMED}} to the top of Talk:Parents Via Egg Donation.
Saturdayseven said that Oprah had teenage parents-yet the article states that her father was born in 1933 and she was born in 1954- and added an irrelavent statement that Esters "spoke out against Winfrey after Winfrey refused to promote her memoir." The user showed nothing to suggest that Esters said this about Oprah for that . The source I mentioned also said: "The 82-year-old Esters, who still lives near the central Mississippi town of Kosciusko—where Oprah spent six years of her childhood—was quoted several times, usually attached to non-flabbergasting statements that, she concedes, Kelley conveyed accurately." The only dispute even mentioned in this article that Esters made was that Kelley said Oprah had a different biological father.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Mother born 1935 - makes her 19 - anyone can work that out - article says an unmarried teenage mother - correct.
And at least these website state that Kitty Kelley claimed Esters told her Oprah lied about being molested in her book.[1][2] Think about it. The website said that Esters conceded Kelley conveyed much of their conversation accurately and did not mention that Esters disputed that Oprah lied being molested.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Those refs are not in the article. Maybe you should discuss it on the talk page? Adding negative items to BLP is always very difficult (and "lied" is very negative), and the references to allow that have to be very good and very reliable. Ronhjones (Talk)23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Your very good and very reliable remark doesn't make sense. You put back in Saturdayseven's comment Esters " spoke out against Winfrey after Winfrey refused to promote her memoir." That isn't a reliable statement at all. If you are a biased Oprah fan, I suggest you read this Wikipedia:Fancruft— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoetheMoe25 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You sure don't seem to be looking at it from a neutral point of view, however, and that makes me think you're lying. My edits were not incorrect, and either you know it or you not calcuting the meaning of what I typed correctly. Sources claimed Kelley stated this in her book and the source I added implored that it was true. Read it for yourself. It said "The 82-year-old Esters, who still lives near the central Mississippi town of Kosciusko—where Oprah spent six years of her childhood—was quoted several times, usually attached to non-flabbergasting statements that, she concedes, Kelley conveyed accurately" and didn't claim she disputed that she told Kelley Oprah wasn't molested JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to forget - I'm not the one editing the page - I've added nothing that was not already in the system. If an editor's edits get reverted because they are incorrect, then the page goes back to the the last undisputed version. If I was adding or removing data as an editor - then that is different. You need to discuss with the other editors, not me. Remember Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRUTH Ronhjones (Talk)00:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Rewritten article
Ron:
Thank you. Pablozeta and I have indeed rewriten this article extensively in the part week, re-named it, and, above all, refocused it on the history of these people, why they are there, and their influences from other peoples (such as Afro-Argentines and Natives), as well as their contributions to the nation's culture. If you look at other articles about similar communtites in the region (such as the ones I mentioned in the AfD discussion), you'll find that this is one of the most thorough, well-sourced, and frankly, balanced such articles for the region.
Feel free to look at the new article and share your thoughts at your convenience.
Hi Ron, I wonder if you could help with Myanmar Armed Forces article as some users kept removing chunks of military related information and instead replacing them with political ones. For example, Units and battallion details were removed from the page and instead replaced with text copied from some political POV news article. I am not adverse to them including alleged Human Rights issue 'etc. and I have asked them to put them in a proper section. I have also warned the user about the fact that Myanmar Armed Forces is a military article and that all political messages should be included in other relevant pages such as Human Rights in Burma or Politics and Military section in Burma country article. However, I'm not being able to convince and I can see that its leading to edit war. can you please help? Okkar (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I can only go on what the web pages claim. The web page does claim copyright (rightly or wrongly - and it's not up to us to evaluate that claim), and the time pre-dates your edit. This is one reason why we do not copy material from one article to another, the other being that it loses the original author's attribution and date of inclusion, so should not be done - either way it was a bad edit. When necessary one can link to a section in another page with a variety of templates made for that purpose. Ronhjones (Talk)01:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There is absolutely no doubt that the article on freeburmaalliance.org, dated Jan 08, 2010, is a copy of this revision of History of Burma, dated Jan 08 2010, or perhaps a revision or two earlier. WP:COPYVIO says "Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part." This is clearly a case where this caveat applies. It does appear that this warning was made in error, and should be withdrawn. We are not required to take third-party copyright claims at face value when they are trivially contradicted by our own article histories. Thparkth (talk)01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by bad edits? The relevant information is not present there. That's why I took some information (Just four or five lines) so that other contributors could expand on it. There have been many times like that other Wikipedians do to begin sections or paragraph. Soewinhan (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
See WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:COPYPASTE - Yes, you can copy parts of one Wikipedia article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary. Original content contributed by users can be freely used, but only if you recognise the original author – if you don't, this violates their copyright. As I said, a bad edit, it violates policy. Ronhjones (Talk)16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Rohnjohnes, did you know that Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock? Were you aware of this? And that the result of this lie was that the admin in question reposted the lie on Wikipedia? On September 27 administrator Muzemike states He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. There it is, flat out stated that Iaaasi did not sock since March(!!!). Please compare this outrageous lie to the list of CheckUser confirmed sockpuppets and the number of edits made by them in full violation of the block [5]. I must ask you about this, since you cited that very discussion when you explained your deliberations. Is it acceptable for users to outright lie on IRC to further their unblock agenda? If it is not acceptable how can it be stopped how can it be avoided that it's repeated again and again. Is there a noticeboard or something on wiki dealing with IRC abuse? What can be done in cases like this? Hobartimus (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
"Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock"
Just to make it clear, Do you deny saying the above to Muzemike? Your claim is that you did not say these things to him? Hobartimus (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to make this more annoying for you. :) I have blocked Iaaasi on a 3RR for a week. After reviewing this, the current spat at WP:ANI, and the rather tepid consensus to unblock him in December, I would welcome your review of his editing status. I have not been able to parse through all of the conditions of his original indefinite block, so I do not have an opinion yet. Kuru(talk)19:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh what fun... As far as I'm concerned, any activity pre 20:38, 8 December 2010 is now irrelevant. User Iaaasi achieved a mild consensus for a second chance (but it was a for!), he then accepted that offer, and was later unblocked at that time stated. If he had not been unblocked then, then I suspect he would have been unblocked a month or two later. Users must remember that an indefinite block is not infinite - WP:INDEF, any blocked user who shows willing to following Wikipedia policies is likely to be unblocked. Harping on about the past is just a bad case of I don't like him (which really falls under WP:NPA) - like him or not Iaaasi was unblocked, and I for one am unlikely to block on any old bit of data pre Dec 2010, it's time everybody moved on and concentrated on good editing, instead of bitching about other editors. I feel that any review of the conduct of Iaaasi should be solely based on editing post Dec 2010 - assuming he has not reverted back, since that date, to any of the issues that caused the original indefinite block. Ronhjones (Talk)00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
But of course he reverted back to them as it is evident when looking at all the edits with familiarity with the whole case (as opposed to small parts here and there). This is the whole point that he reverted back and such all of the previous conduct must be taken into account. (you can realize it is already being taken into account because blocks in first instances usually given for a day, while blocks received after taken the history of abuse into account are for longer periods as the case with the latest block). Hobartimus (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI
Hello Ronhjones,
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for your decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know that you were leaded by what sorts of inducements in your decision having taken, your participation in the discussion is most welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice work on that! Just a lot of IPs trying to make the results fiction! Quick question: Am I right in saying that merchandise sites in external links applies under WP:SPAM? Tried to revert one on the Scott Redding page but stopped due to 3RR threat. Regards, Cs-wolves(talk)01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
My mouse button is getting hot with all those protects... Spam, always a bit pov as to inclusion - all the relevant bits are at WP:EL, and official links are covered by WP:ELOFFICIAL. That said, I suspect an official merchandising site is going to be a grey area. Good idea to avoid the 3RR! Ronhjones (Talk)01:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Another one for you; IP hopping on this occasion I do believe...58.166.215.250, 124.182.161.85, 124.182.142.124 and 58.170.168.186...IP2Location seems to have them in all the same location; introducing unnecessary data on the page. Might need a protection on 2011 Formula Renault 3.5 Series season, imo. ;) Cs-wolves(talk)15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ron, sorry to bother you, would you please take a look at my talk page on a message left by Fletch the Mighty regarding the above two users and their suspicious activities? It somehow coincide with the comment you made regarding the user account User:Soewinhan may have been stolen. Okkar (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ron, User:Soewinhan put up "Retired" message on the same day when SPI Clerk has endorsed CheckUser, i didnt check the timestamp, but I think it was after the endorsement. Okkar (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Bautista
I remember last season that I personally had put Pedrosa down as a DNS for breaking his collarbone at Motegi, but I realise now that may be a mistake. DNQ or WD may suffice but I am unsure which one to choose. You got any preference to it? Cs-wolves(talk)19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Good - I though DNS was not quite right - I've plumped for DNQ - he turned up, did some practice, and broke a leg - to me, the DNS and WD suggest he qualified and then dropped out. I've done the edit. Ronhjones (Talk)22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
My feelings on WD and DNS (I could be wrong!) - I see WD as qualified then broke the leg trying for a faster lap, and DNS is just "Did Not Start" - so he's come out to race and bike seizes on start line just before the off. How's that? Ronhjones (Talk)22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm in agreement with that. Hmm...I like that. WD would apply on the Saturday, and DNS on the Sunday to cover sighting lap crashes per Spies (Estoril '10) and Stoner (Valencia '09). I think? Cs-wolves(talk)22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There's always a first time, and now you have stated it... 8-) I've not seen the Q for this weekend (BBC don't normally do repeats of "red button" transmissions), as we live on top of a hill and the recent winds last month killed the aerial that's connected to the TV card in the PC, so I was up a ladder for most of the afternoon, not surprised at Stoner for pole - he likes Quatar. Ronhjones (Talk)23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's only the flyaways that they repeat qualifying...Stoner is absolutely mighty in Qatar; doesn't seem so long ago that he was running away with the race last year before dumping a nice red bike into the kitty litter. Think him and Pedrosa may check out from the field tomorrow. Cs-wolves(talk)23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Wolves suggested I chime in here given I replied to your comment on his talk page. Basically, after doing a little bit of research, I would actually say Bautista should go down as either Withdrew or Injured, primarily because of the fact that while he didn't qualify, he didn't exactly DNQ in the sense that is meant by it. Another example would be this weekend's NASCAR Nationwide race, where a driver that was originally entered wrecked in the last practice and couldn't repair it in time for qualifying; NASCAR themselves don't even acknowledge him in the qualifying lineup, so in my eyes he counts as a proper Withdrawal, should that case not apply here also? TheChrisDRants•Edits23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, that's why I asked in the first place - DNS was just so obviously wrong. We don't seem to have an "injured" code in the template - maybe that needs changing? My first check was to http://www.motogp.com/en/Results+Statistics - they have listed Bautista on FP1, FP2, FP3 and QP - but on QP, they show his name at the bottom with no position and no time - hence my suggestion of DNQ. But if people like WD is better, then that's fine by me.
Hi Ron, There has been a heading comment added to the 'CUSACK' article stating that 'This article's factual accuracy is disputed' and questioning it being 'reliably sourced'. There seems to have been a number of 'movements/comments' between two people during last week. I thought that I'd 'reliably sourced' what I written! I have added a statement to the talk page but there has been no response or no movement in the 'factual accuracy' covering statement. I don't know what the 'coded' comments mean on the history page or what I need to do to rectify/correct/modify/remove to satisfy requirements. Your advice will be welcomed. Best Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like two issues - an unref section, and a question on the map. Map doesn't look that bad, and should only be discussed on the map's talk page. Thus the tag for the whole article, no longer applies - as it's now just a section, so I changed it. Just add a ref to that section and remove the tag. Ronhjones (Talk)21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ron. Thanks yet again for your help and advice. I trust Spring is arriving in Morecambe, it is here in the Cotswolds. Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The River Wheelock Aqueduct lies on Middlewich Branch of the Shropshire Union Canal, not the Trent and Mersey Canal. There are two aqueducts, not one, lying east of the village of Wheelock, neither of which carries the canal over the River Wheelock. The western aqueduct carries the canal over a brook ("Sandbach Mill Brook") that I don't know the official name of, and the eastern one over Betchton Brook. According to another site the former is the Wheelock Aqueduct (presumably referring to the village, rather than the river), and the latter unnamed other than as bridge 153. The Wheelock Aqueduct apparently does not have a bridge number. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, what a pain... Could do with a local... As far as I can see (on Google Earth) - starting from the lock going East, 167ft from gate gets you to the centre of the A534, then 65ft to the centre of the aqueduct, then 663ft to the next smaller aqueduct. As you say, neither is the actual river wheelock. Which one is the real "Wheelock Aqueduct" is unclear - sometimes they are named after the flight of locks. CanalPlan is like WP - anyone can edit... But I'm on several canal mailing lists - so I will post a question, someone will know. I'll do some sort of fix to the map. Ronhjones (Talk)21:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have two replies, not great...
According to a post-war LMS map of the area they are (from lock 66 direction)
"Aqueduct" Br 153 (no name for the river)
"Wheelock Aqueduct" Br 153 over "River Wheelock"
(Note both are numbered 153)
BW's current functional location list for the area has them as
TM-038-006 "Aqueduct"
TM-038-008 "Aqueduct 153A, Arclid Aqueduct"
So we are no clearer!
We are somewhat clearer. The stream that I did't have a name for rises near Arclid, and apparently is called Arclid Brook, so the western aqueduct (153A) would be Arclid Aqueduct, the aqueduct over Arclid Brook.
I now realise that I don't recall where I got my usage of the names River Wheelock and Betchton Brook, and digging around the web, it appears that I got them wrong; according to various Cheshire LGOs the eastern aqueduct (153) carries the canal over the River Wheelock, and would be the Wheelock Aqueduct. So, Wikipedia was wrong, CanalPlanAC was wrong, and I was wrong.
A map here (3 Mb PDF) has the streams merging at Wheelock as being, clockwise, Arclid Brook, River Wheelock, Malkins Brook (known as Lawton Brook upstream) and Hassall Brook. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a few references to Betchon Brook, which I don't find defined, but may be an alternative name for the reach of the River Wheelock above the village. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I've hardly edited CanalPlan in it's current version, (I did add several pictures to the old version) - I've have a look and see what I can do. Ronhjones (Talk)23:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There was quite a lot of activity around there on CanalPlanAC a few months ago. The conclusion seems to be that there are two aqueducts there, and we settled on "Wheelock Aqueduct" for the main one and the less inspired "Aqueduct below Wheelock Bottom Lock" for the smaller one.
P.S. You are incorrect on your first line, Wheelock not on the Middlewich Branch, but on the main line. The Middlewich Branch runs west from Middlewich to Barbridge Junction Ronhjones (Talk)01:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
According to CanalPlanAC, the River Wheelock aqueduct carries the Middlewich branch of the Shropshire Union Canal over the River Wheelock, less than 1 mile west of Middlewich Junction. The village of Wheelock does lie on the main line of the Trent and Mersey Canal, but my first sentence did not refer to the village. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I was just declining the prod with the edit summary: "Declining G10. This sounded plausible—"sucks" as in a play on vampires sucking one's blood—and a google search confirms. Not an attack page. However prodding on basis of WP:CRYSTAL." I don't think A1 applies. However, If you want to keep it deleted I have no problem. Would not survive an AfD and process for process' sake is not something I'm much of a fan of.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't a great page - The tagger used A1 and G10 together - I saw it flag up as an attack page. "This Episode Sucks" could be a play on words, or it could be clever negative comment, no references either way, so it went. I'm sure if there is some better info then someone will create it again. Ronhjones (Talk)15:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
