User talk:Rrburke/Archive 3

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rrburke/Archive_3.

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Archives

Archive 1: Dec 6, 2005 - Sept 8, 2007 Archive 2: Sept 18, 2007 - Jan 10, 2009

I think all one can say ....

about the user who enjoyed himself on my user page is "What a cute little puppy"! Thanks for reverting the sweet child. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your constant work fighting vandalism on wikipedia. Keep up the good work :) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/Cont 19:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem :) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please....

We've got a puppet: see [1] and [2]. Both creating/editing/reverting the exact same articles in the exact same way. User talk:Slycooper100 is a puppet, meat or sock, of User talk:G-man80. I have never filed a puppet case nor asked for a checkuser. What to do? Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 03:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got my eye on. This guy wants more than anything for his blog to be validasted some way by wiki. Thanks much, Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inre this: With the few I have? Sure... I don't mind at all. Maybe someone might figure if I can do it, THEY can do it... though I think wiki-training is important for newbies... and rescue is good for us all. Will I be able to put in in a userbox? Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just added the tag and see that I totally misunderstood your request. I thought the tag was gong to be for a "user who writes articles"... and in that context, the text of my comment above makes perfect sense and doesn't sound like someone promoting COI. I did not in any way intend my coment to be taken as noblise oblige for users to write articles about themselves. You must have thought I was nuts. Sorry. And thanks. Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "blank page" at Acqua Alta

Hello Rrburke, thanks for your post. I'm a bit new at the translation business, and was trying to follow the instructions on how to remove from 'in progress' to 'completed'. I'm not sure I figured it out, but hope so. --Campelli (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tsap59

An obvious sleeper account now indef blocked. Thanks. _Gb^T/c 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abgreen

Message: ou have tagged this image as self-created an named yourself as the copyright-holder; however, the content of the image -- that is, the Haydon School web page -- is not your creation nor are you the copyright-holder. The contents of this page must be treated as presumptively as copyrighted and that copyright is held by the Haydon School and not you. If you believe there is a fair use rationale for your uploading of this image, you must state it on the image's page or the image will be deleted. --Rrburke(talk) 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How can i do this???

Thank you for your support and help

You're welcome

You're welcome for reverts of the vandalism on your user page. :) I know you'd do the same for me. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how so?

All of Coleman Francis' films end with a vigilante style shooting. JAF1970 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes i know, sorry. this is the first article that ive contributed and im trying to figure out redirects.. and as you can see.. i havent quite figured it out yet.. can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavidOlsen (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think that ive got it sorted out now, thanks. -j —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavidOlsen (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted change

Hi!

Could you explain to me how my edit to United States presidential line of succession was unhelpful? The edited remark certainly looked like exaggerated speculation to me, which I believe we are not mean to indulge in. BTW, I have edited here for five years (I do not have a static IP) which is why you can't see many past edits. Regards Chris 86.169.31.73 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Not a problem 86.169.31.73 (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, I read the requirements, and in good faith, I don't think the person discussed meets those requirements at this point without some significant third party justification, which are largely absent. Given this, I think it's in the best interest to have the article deleted, for now. Lemert (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designer baby article and vandalism

I watch over 125 articles and Designer baby seems to be one that attracts the most vandalism. Is there anything we can do about it like adding a semi-protection block? --Loremaster (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I'm always happy to help, but I'm surprised you're asking me for advice: you've been around this place a lot longer than I have! Cheers! --Rrburke^(talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you are part of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, I thought you might be more up to date on new procedures regarding such problems. --Loremaster (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll try to go through the edit history to see how the problem measures up against Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. If you decide to go ahead and file it at WP:RPP before I get the chance, please drop me a line so I don't duplicate your work. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't file it since I prefer you take of it. Thanks! --Loremaster (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again... were you aware the "e-mail me" link at the top of your user talk page actually emails User:Ed_g2s?:

• [[Special:Emailuser/Ed_g2s|e-mail me]]

--Rrburke^(talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops! I had no idea. Thanks for letting me know. :) --Loremaster (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you have noticed but the article was vandalized again at 20:03, 23 January 2009. I'm still confused as to why this article attracts so many vandals... --Loremaster (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, but as regards page protection, the problem -- if you can call this is a problem -- is that the article's actually not being vandalized enough. Protection, which is typically temporary, tends to be reserved for high-volume vandalism, often from multiple sources. A lot of requests at WP:RPP are turned down because the articles are under-vandalized. The activity at Designer baby looks to me like nuisance-level vandalism that it's just up to users to keep on top of and revert. --Rrburke^(talk) 01:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. --Loremaster (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rrburke. We need to put a semi-protection on the Designer baby article. The vandalism is constant. Can you take care of this? --Loremaster (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism edits from today are all by one IP user. Page protection is reserved for when the article is under attack from a number of different vandals. In this case the solution is to warn them with a succession of vandalism warnings {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}} and {{uw-vandalism4}} and then submit a report at WP:AIV if they persist after the level 4 warning. --Rrburke^(talk) 01:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but the vandalism has been going on for weeks from a number of different vandals. So does that change everything? --Loremaster (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow reply: I'm computerless and am reduced for the moment to editing at a public library. I'm afraid the page won'r merit protection unless multiple edits are vandalizing the article around the same time, I'm afraid. For example, have a look at the volume of vandalism here to get a sense of merits page protection. Check the March 4 page history. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New posting

Hi,

I wanted to set up a page about my new company (before i realised the rules about advertising etc). I therefore understand why you deleted my page. However, there is a grey line between what is advertising and what is not. Could you please explain how i can get round this. I see that companies such as KPMG and Price Waterhouse etc all have pages on here that are basically advertising. If i therefore copy their format, ie: mention the number of people working here and the operations etc, would this suffice as to relaying information rather than blatant advertising.

Many thanks for any help you can give me.

Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamlet23 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Feldhendler

Very nice job with the rewrite. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE Paul Bremer

That edit was a statement of fact. Granted it doesn't nullify all the other information that was contained within the Bremner aticle, but a statement of fact nontheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.115.224 (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete wrong

on joe arginder, if you listen to joe radio i am correcting the article the motto is not what was there it is what i corrected it to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCRTV25 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

The Age of Persuasion

Seems fine to me, though I'd suggest doing a quick Google check on the shorter title first just to make sure it wouldn't need to get disambiguated as "The Age of Persuasion (radio show)" instead. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Icehockeybcboy

The page he blanked was a page of which he was sole contributor. He meant to be asking for deletion. (He has since created it as Douglas Baptist Church, Douglas, Cork, which is very unlikely to standup to afd, just like other local churches.)DGG (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DREAM Act

Question for you. I have DREAM Act on my watchlist and there have been some major changes to the wording of the article. I noticed that you're an editor there, so I was wondering what your take on these edits would be. I left a message on that editor's talk page asking him about the edits but he did not respond. What's the history here, and how would you recommend proceeding? Thanks in advance for your response. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Thanks for the revert. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Bash

My sincere apologies - I had only noticed that the account had done the blanking, not that he'd actually created the page. I'm very sensitive towards Wikipedia's not infrequently despicable treatment of people who don't want to be covered here. This mistreatment sometimes manifests itself in the following process:

• Article subject notices that he has an article here and, for whatever reason (often because the article has at some point been the target of a hatchet job, which this one has) blanks it, thinking that, since anybody can edit Wikipedia, that's the way to delete an article.
• Wikipedian bites article subject without actually providing any helpful details (such as how one actually pursues the deletion of an article).

I had incorrectly assumed that this is what happened here. Of course, the fact that that account also created the article changes things somewhat. Again, my apologies. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:91.153.136.16

I think you're right, that link is definitely no good. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid citation on that page

The page does not meet the credibility and verifiability

Please message the person responsible and have them fix it, or this will continue until the proper guidelines are followed :(

Thank you .

Hello, Rrburke. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Digestive biscuit

I have no idea, which is why I tried to end it with this [3] edit. If worse comes to worst, I'll actually provide this: [4] as a citation. Majorclanger (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see that there's actually a discussion topic about this on the page's talk. I'm pretty sure this isn't the *MOST* trivial and asinine issue I've gotten involved it, but it's very very close! : ) Majorclanger (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air On Demand

I think you may have erred here; the author was trying to clean up the promotional tone in the article. Regards, Skomorokh 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I'll have a look. I was trying to revert the editor's removal of the speedy tag buy may have deleted the improvements as collateral damage. On other hand, the article is still soapy and may be speedied before I get there. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a little better now; the editor seems to recognize that the article is not up to scratch. Easy on the trigger finger, eh? Skomorokh 19:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue is the conflict of interest: the editor refers to the firm here as "our company". Even if it merits an article, which I rather doubt, he should refrain from editing it. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but who else is going to bring it up to scratch. I'll keep an eye on it and PROD it in a few days if there's no improvement. Cheers, Skomorokh 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Mahmoud Abbas. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Rrburke(talk) 21:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you check, I think you'll find I was trying to revert the blanking of the page. Sorry for the mixup. Wperdue (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

==Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, i have reported the user for vandalism and should hopefully stop now Macromonkey (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the multiple reverts on my user page earlier. :) LittleMountain5 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Rrburke/Archive 3's Day!

User:Rrburke/Archive 3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Rrburke/Archive 3's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Rrburke/Archive 3! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012 film reference

Hello i added a new reference in wikipedia 2012 (film) you delete this reference by saying it is Spam, please tell me how this references is Spam. it simply showing the trailer of the movie.

If you see the page Astro Boy (film) there is one external link of blog which claim that (he is creative Director of Imagi Animation Studios, who is working on Astro Boy the animated CG movie now.) but if you check the blog there is nothing special in this blog , even this is a home page of blog which also tells so many stories of different movie. and this blog is add in external link. I think this is a question of partiality?, This is first time when i edit wikipedia. & my edit is deleted by saying these are the spams. please answer my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.141.89 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC) --122.161.141.89 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which template

Which template did you substitue on the talk page of this user? Debresser (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was Template:uw-huggle1. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only new those on wp:User warnings. This is a lot better. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at San Bartolo (Maya site)

Hi there Rrburke. You may have huggled that revert and warned the anon in haste; the anon did actually explain in their edit summary why they were removing that section[5]. IMO it was reasonable for them to remove that para on that basis, and FWIW agree that the para had enough WP:NOR and WP:SYN probs to warrant its removal; which I've done. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right: my error. Thanks for catching it. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, have done similar things myself so know how it goes. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RUTT.jpg at Raise Up the Tent

Rrburke, i'm new to editing wikipedia and im having a little trouble, i've provided the correct information for File:RUTT1.jpg, but the version File:RUTT.jpg is being used instead, i just want to delete that and have the correct one used, if you can do that, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbchris22 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RUTT.jpg at Raise Up the Tent

well, if you were to go to Raise Up the Tent and click on the album cover image it would bring you to File:RUTT.jpg; however, that is the wrong file that i wish to appear. if you scroll down it says File:RUTT.jpg is a duplicate of a File:RUTT1.jpg, the latter is the one which i want to appear once you click the album cover, it has all the copyright stuff and summary detail provided. is there any way you might be able to delete the File:RUTT.jpg so File:RUTT1.jpg is the lone and correct file? File:RUTT1.jpg <-----This is the correct one

Ok, to start, edit the infobox in the article Raise Up the Tent, substituting RUTT1.jpg for RUTT.jpg in this field:

Cover = RUTT.jpg

--Rrburke^(talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! thanks a lot, looks great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbchris22 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TLG Photo

also, the Tea Leaf Green picture i posted says it might be subject to speedy deletion. i was wondering how i could stop that, i added the photographer's named, the source, and i contacted the photographer and asked permission to use this photo and he said it was perfectly fine, what else do i need? Kimbchris22 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So contacting Jeremy Gordon (the photographer), which I did, and asking permission to put it on TLG's wikipedia page and him saying that is perfectly alright still doesn't allow it to be used? Kimbchris22 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the instructions here: User:R. Baley/Acquire a free image, this is written from the point of view of a biography but it would be the same for the photo for the band's article.--Captain-tucker (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for all the help, it is greatly appreciated. Kimbchris22 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Tlgrocknrollband.jpg

i added the Non-free use media rationale, does it now meet copyright requirements?Kimbchris22 (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks againKimbchris22 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Family Gay

I apologize for my tone. It just irked me that it was clear you had not even watched the episode in question. --Captain Infinity (talk)

re: LinnMar Highschool Notable Alumni.

you requested references however seems its already been determined that its not worth pursuing. note from OhNoitsJamie: "It's pretty clear that none of the entries you added meet those guidelines. Please don't add them again." This will be the last time I visit this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browneyes100 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi. Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem :)

No problem at all. Happy editing :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pizza

You believe the words "mmmm i like pizza!!!" should be inserted on the talk page? Just asking, I won't revert it. Dan D. Ric (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Not sure what happened there. Thanks for catching it. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, I've done the same myself at times. Sometimes things get confusing. Thanks for replying here discussions on two pages also get confusing. Dan D. Ric (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is that person tha pops up from the side u? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.199.37 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dude

what did i do wrong. i made ur article way better. its much more appealing the way i changed it to. u could have just told me u didnt like it rather than report me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.124.183 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of warnings for making similar edits to other articles, you changed:

• "Jeff Carter (born January 1, 1985 in London, Ontario) is a Canadian professional ice hockey centre"

to

• "Jeff Carter was born Jan.1 1985 in London Ontario) is a Canadian professional ice hockey centre"

How is that "way better"?

--Rrburke^(talk) 13:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages Maen. K. A. (talk)

Thanks

thank you, I was starting to gag, if not for your intervention I may have choked to death. :P Spitfire^Tally-ho! 02:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome!

HAHA, no problem...but you are a COOK, right? (look closely) LOL, if someone is gonna vandalize, it'd be nice if they could spell right. CTJF83Talk 02:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you're right on both accounts! CTJF83Talk 02:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eoka

the article is a mess in reality, no talks of turkish below the Turkish Cypriots headline and smells greek,cause never told about brutality of eoka ,and by all impartial sources,first aim of eoka is ethnical cleaning,but eoka explained like a liberation organisation,and you only deleting my addings why? Girayhan (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.250.43.136

You had properly chastised this user a few weeks ago. I thought you should know, this user is back, making disruptive edits and making abusive remarks.THD3 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Logic and Science

This user has created an account seemingly (compare his contributions so far) with the sole purpose of vandalising a single page ("Hind Rattan"), a page which you yourself have also reverted after vandalism by user 64.199.105.4, whom on the basis of his/her edits I suspect (but cannot prove) to be the same. User Logic and Science has been repeatedly warned to desist from vandalism by at least three persons. Since I do not know how to go about this, I do request you to monitor the page named and bar this user if he/she indulges in vandalism again. Kochank (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hideuser

Thanks! There are a bunch more (and there seem to be a bunch more every night). NawlinWiki (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you an email on this, if that's all right. There's a ton of them. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question...

...and I'm going to err on the side of caution and block these accounts. Typical Grawp groupie nonsense and I don't want to take a chance. Thanks for alerting me to the pun. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll bet I have a few "tributes" as of late. I've seen some of them. In a way, it's a good thing. I'm getting under the skins of these pathetic little boys with nothing better to do than to follow the marching orders of some little fool in the Lakewood, California area. That's where the checkuser seems to have pinpointed User:JarlaxleArtemis, the original Grawp. AFAIK, that nincompoop more than likely just leaves his page at ED up and the little monsters who wander into that cesspool just play copycat. Me, I wouldn't go within a hundred miles of that monstrosity of a website. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure who edits from my IP address. But this public IP address is used by a few people from within a private subnet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.208.41 (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For the life of me, I can't understand why people like that want to keep coming back here after they've been shown the door. On my way to keep an eye on the guy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]