This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tonywalton. 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.
IMDb - It's a word-for-word copy of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1285612/bio including capitalisation and minor typos (e.g. "earned a Master degree" instead of "Master's degree"). I'm kind of confused, since it was you who placed that URL on the deletion log the first time you deleted it! TonywaltonTalk21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I see; I was looking at the earlier version. It's still veryclose - how about I userfy the later version and ask the "author" to rework it some more? TonywaltonTalk15:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Tony,
I have included the new version on the link you gave me (The page is now here. Regards, Tonywalton)
That´s the one. Let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWwhite (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
My idea is to put Gustavo Hernández Pérez as the main title. The accents are more important in this case.
Right now GHP (without the accents) shows up as the main title of the article.
Please let me know how to do it.
Thanks. {—Preceding unsigned comment added by SWwhite (talk • contribs)
I´ll keep it in mind, Tony.
Thanks. One question came up. ¿How do I create a language alternative section from the article? SWwhite (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Tony, It´s what I meant.
We would like to create a Spanish version of the article.
So I need to create it in Wikipedia Espanol first, and then at the end of the article write de:GHP Am I right? SWwhite (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to undo the page blanking but it looks like I got there late. There are some anti-vandalism tasks that I should leave to those with faster connections! Will Bebacktalk01:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok ok, I really don't mean to be a bother about this. It's just that the whole article has degenerated in weird ways, primarily because Imbris accuses me (and has several others) of national agenda or POV pushing, so much so that outside editors were asked to express an opinion. These he subsequently ignored, before reworking the entire article without so much as an explanation on the talkpage till he was vigorously queried. I think it may be time for me to back off all together, at least until things get less twisted. But having the article mangled again gets me all upset. A wikibreak may be in order. Best regards etc, Pietru (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Possibly a good idea. Go and see the real world and come back refreshed. I wish other editors would take such refreshingly sensible attitude! Regards, TonywaltonTalk10:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
LaSylphide, etc.
Thanks for your spot-on comments, both on my page and ItLassieTime's. Wow, I had forgotten about LaSylphide. From Lassie's comments today, though, it's plainly evident that Overjoyed, LaSylphide, 209.244.189.88, and all of Lassie's socks are in fact from Lassie. The troublesome thing is not only the "fabulation", but also that the contentiousness or "attitude" displayed by Overjoyed in early 2008 (which is also when Lassie started) is the same attitude we saw in Buttermilk and in Lassie just this past Saturday. Remember the sarcastic remarks about Sgt. Joe Friday and such? The arguments about needing to edit in order to achieve GA status sound familiar - I think Overjoyed made the same argument. However, his talk page history seems to have disappeared. In any case, NO, I do not trust that user one iota, and I think the month-long block should stand - at least. I also recommend that you impose an indef block on LaSylphide, which is unblocked at present. Lassie had abandoned that logon after it was blocked a year ago, but this would close that potential loophole. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Yes, I've noticed the continual pleas for sympathy. There was the one from earlier today, about someone next door whose husband had a stroke or some such. Be that as it may, someone raised a GA queston and I've posed this idea: [1] What do you think? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right, the statement about using different ID's for grouping things just does not hold water, due to the overlap in subject matter. I think the closest we'll get to the truth is the "bowl of candy" comment posted here [2] which 1/2 hour later was withdrawn here [3], along with the offer to work with me on the Superman article, which is probably just as well, considering how that went in Feb 2008. Ironically, using separate ID's for separate topics is an acceptable use of multiple accounts - provided it's not done to have an "evil twin", as you aptly suggested regarding Buttermilk. That was what got me about Overjoyed vs. TimmyTruck. Overjoyed was a prickly character, while TimmyTruck seemed to have a mild disposition. I was pretty sure they were the same user, but Timmy didn't do anything that warranted a checkuser. So it's the same deal again, a year later. And it's all play-acting: belligerence, compliance, contrition - all childlike behavior. Which fits with the subject matter the user edits. Hard telling what all is up with that, but that's not our problem. The integrity of wikipedia is. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots11:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops. I'd missed FlippFlopp and BeethovenFidelio. Sadly the edits do seem good, when the person driving all this stops using WP as Myspace MyOwnPrivateFantasyWorld. Trouble is, despite the good edits when will the sockmaster decide to have some more "fun" and reactivate PucciniButterfly or AliceWhiteRabbit (neither of which accounts exist - I just made them up), causing another week's worth of "mischief and mayhem" as people are insulted like Montanabw was, then AN/I gets involved, and CU... I've proposed a community ban at AN/I for this reason. TonywaltonTalk11:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The "candy bowl" comment is what startled me, and it's easy to see why it was withdrawn - "Oops, telling the truth - can't have that!" That comment was a dead giveaway. I think most of us wouldn't think in those terms. The fact that that user has that mindset indicates they are nothing but trouble - past, present, and future. Here's what I was going to say to the user, but I fear it would be only complied with just to get unblocked: "You don't need multiple users. Just use one user and be yourself as that user. But be better." Sound good? Except that I don't trust the user. "Hundreds of socks?" Probably just another fable. But who knows? Reminds me of Ted Bundy on the eve of his execution, confessing to all manner of killings and hoping to stay alive by continuing to confess. Ugh. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots11:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's hard telling whether Lassie is telling the truth about "hundreds of socks", but my guess would be that he's fibbing about not remembering them all. The thing I'm wondering, though, is why the checkuser didn't find those extra socks. Do they need to take it a step farther somehow? Obviously, I don't know how the checkuser process works. But is there a way to track down EVERY user ID on that IP address? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know that's what a checkuser does. However there's no easy way of knowing which accounts have been created under a different IP address, particularly if it's unrelated (a home IP and an IP in a public library on a completely different ISP, for example). You'd need to find a friendly checkuser to get more general information. Seems like ILT is having a tantrum, by the way. TonywaltonTalk17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the user HatAct[4] was probably another sock. Same editing pattern. If you follow the contribes of the ItsLassieTime's IP 209.244.189.88[5], you can probably find many more. I think most are probably too old to CU, but their editing pattern is fairly easy to spot. Incidentally, they also seemed to like baseball. - Josette (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who likes baseball clearly is suspect. Oh, hi there Bugs... :) As for the CU question, the history of association between IP and edit is, by design, only kept for a certain length of time for privacy reasons. The details of this are not generally available to folk other than CUs. ++Lar: t/c20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall running into that character in the baseball articles, but if someone told me a name, I might recognize it. And, yes, the specifics of checkuser results are kept close to the vest. It's always funny when somebody caught socking "demands" evidence for how they got caught. "As if!" Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
While looking at the contribs of that IP, I found quite a few articles I was familiar with (horse stuff) and was able to spot their sock's edit pattern quickly. While I did see many edits to baseball articles by that IP, I was not able to spot any more socks. Although I did find another very suspicious IP address with similar edits. - Josette (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
←Please let me know who (or maybe Lar would like to tag 'n' block). It's 1:21am here so I'm off to kip, but I'll see to them in the morning if Lar doesn't. TonywaltonTalk00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I will email it to you. Please compare the contribs of the two IPs. Let me know what you think. Thanks. - Josette (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, see... that's about the only thing I'd let them slide on, "messing with" wise... I mean really, who cares about baseball? (now, if the Detroit Tigers ever got good again I'd change my tune). I've seen both the IPs Jo is referring to and they've been pretty thoroughly CU checked by now, and not just by me. Still, there might be more there to find, who knows? ...but I'd be surprised. If more socks appear from there, the IPs no doubt need blocking too. Best. ++Lar: t/c02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Digressions and miscellanea
←I do agree about baseball, Lar, but as a Brit I must admit to bias there. Regarding edits by 209.244.189.88, Josette, yes, I probably could go through the contributions but honestly life's too short to check histories on all articles that IP edited going back to January 2007, even taking into account a six-month block ☺ - we've all wasted too long on this already. Also as I said to BB above we can't tell whether socks were created from other IPs anyway (incidentally I'd suspect 209.etc to be a static IP if it's remained unchanged for that long, heck, mine changed only today following a short power outage and I'd only had it a matter of a few weeks, so a long-term block might be an option with little or no collateral damage. That's an interesting ISP there, as well - I didn't know they did domestic stuff). Anyhow, I intend to leave the ban proposal open for 24-36 hours and, if consensus is to ban, explain to ILT what this means. TonywaltonTalk21:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I once had somebody tell me they didn't like baseball because it "violates the laws of cricket". However, with the 20-overs version that's becoming popular, cricket is becoming more and more like baseball. All they need is to figure out how to do a 7th-innings stretch. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe you're talking about test matches that are purposely 3 days. Come on. 5 days is longer than the typical golf tournament. It's scintillating TV. But only when Tiger is playing. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Test matches can be scheduled for either 3 or 5 days, though may not last that long due either to weather or one team actually managing to win inside that time, which is possible; many matches end as a draw (not a tie - that's different and very rare). Don't forget cricket is a leisurely game; they'll start play at 10:30 or 11am, have an hour off for lunch between 1-2pm, and a tea break for 1/2 hour at about 4pm. I know , "two nations separated by a common language", and all that, but (joking apart) I've never really seen the point of comparing cricket and baseball (to the detriment of either), or American football and Association football (aka soccer) - they are different sports. Your comparison of golf and cricket is a good one - you may as well try and make an absolute 'this sport is "better"' comparison in terms of the duration of the tournament or, I dunno, the brightness of the players' jerseys. Still, it's a good source of humour. For an English (not British) view of how the world sees the English rugby team, see this ☺ TonywaltonTalk23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I know enough about cricket and rugby just to be barely dangerous. They're both good games. Rugby evolved into American football, and in any case it's a much better game than soccer, for my money. I've only seen videos of cricket, and only the 50-overs (1 day) matches. Cricket is a game I could get into, if I had the time. :) I think of it as being a basketball version of a bat-and-ball game, in that is there's lots of scoring, lots of action. Baseball is more like hockey: Very little scoring by comparison, so each score counts for a lot. That's true of soccer too, but I find it very uninteresting, as it seems to consist mostly of kicking the ball (in slow progress) from end of the field to the other. I liked the indoor version better, as it's more like hockey, which I also like; but I think it's extinct. One thing about cricket and baseball is that although they're different in the details, on a high level they're similar enough that if you know one you can easily understand the other. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Liebman again
Thanks for blocking that idiot again. Georgewilliamherbert imposed a range block, and he still got around it. Presumably he'll be doing a checkuser on these two when he gets the chance, and see what other IP range(s) Liebman is working in. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want another contrast, look at the prickly style of Overjoyed vs. the relatively calm style of TimmyTruck. I think the editor has a screw or two loose, but there's nothing we can do about that short of an intervention of some kind. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the editor has a great deal of talent, and several screws loose. The sudden tantrums and addings of pictures of dead animals once they realised they really were blocked was chilling. Never mind, let's see what happens in 6 months when the IP block expires. TonywaltonTalk19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you did fine. I was moving somebody else's top-posting to the place where the bottom of the page was at the time it was posted. You had nothing to answer for there! --Orange Mike | Talk17:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Joe is older than any of them, going back to 2007, and at least feigns being of Asian extraction, though living in the USA. Also purports to like women, which is NOT the vibe I got from Lassie (who is almost certainly male, just so we're clear on that - and by the way, male dogs played Lassie in the TV series). The main crossover is simply topics. Joe and Logos argue with each other on Joe's talk page, which could be just a ruse. Joe certainly expresses a similar snippy attitude. And Logos has stopped editing since the end of March, so if it was a sock, it's being blocked by the IP block, right?
However, my hunch at the moment is that they are probably not the same guy, but it just happens that they are both hotheads. My guess is that the Relevance twins removed those warnings off both Logos and Joe talk pages, rather than just one of them, in order to maybe not so obviously tie itself to Logos. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots07:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
And if I were you, I would block the Relevances, as they were obviously either socks of Lassie or up to no good in general. It wouldn't hurt to run Joe past the checkuser, because their initial sweep did not find TimmyTruck, but when we asked, they found him. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots10:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
No, GaryColemanFanboy is definitely not me. I appreciate you blocking the account. Perhaps I should feel flattered, as this is the second time someone has felt the need to imitate my username in the past month (the other being LarryColemanFan, who is also indefinitely blocked). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked user
Tony, re user:90.218.53.199; you just blocked this IP. We have been admins for about the same length of time, and I will not second-guess you. I know that as an IP our options are limited, but as he is a block-evading sock, are you certain that a 31 hour block is enough? --Anthony.bradbury"talk"21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Tony. I am guessing you speak the Queens english. I believe you call the last car a "Van". I would like to follow the Goose convention. Where would I go to confirm this? 68.244.56.7 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
"Normal English pluralization rules" being what? English is crawling with irregular plurals: "foot/feet", "sheep/sheep", "hoof/hooves", but "roof/roofs", "child/children", "mongoose/mongooses or mongeese"... Happy Easter. TonywaltonTalk07:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Normal English rules are a trailing s or es. My dictionary gives the plural only when it's an exception to that rule. The "en" suffix is interesting. That's a leftover from the German part of English. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots12:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Leftover from Old English to an extent, perhaps (why ox/oxen, but axe/axes, though, and why child→childer→childeren (a double plural)→children?), but modern German is nearly as bad - Mann/Männer, Brötchen/Brötchen, Frau/Frauen. You can (often) guarantee that a feminine noun such as Frau or Küche will take (e)n in the plural, but masculine nouns like Mann or Tisch (table) aren't as regular (Mann/Männer but Tisch/Tische). Neuter nouns (Mädchen (girl), Gebäude (building)) may remain unaltered (so das Mädchen, the girl; die Mädchen, the girls; das Gebäude/die Gebäude) or not (das Auto - the automobile/die Autos - the automobiles; das Ende (the end)/die Enden (the ends)). Your English dictionary may give only exceptions to the (e)s ending, but there are a helluva lot of them. "Caboose" is also complicated by the word being a corruption of a word of foreign origin. I'd agree that "cabooses" is the most likely plural, but I don't think it's cut and dried, especially since the plural of "caboose" is used so infrequently that an agreed-on plural simply hasn't had a chance to become embedded in common English use. (All the foregoing being OR and POV, of course ☺ ) TonywaltonTalk13:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I know for a fact that he's daclared for Scotland - wheather or not he's not been capped yet. He hasn't been contacted by the Australian FA and has said that playing for Scotland would be 'much better'. A quick google search can confirm this. I think I can get the sourcing in an hour or two, although I'm not sure where to put it. RicoRichmond (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I know it can be a bit confusing, but it seems to that it is common practice give the icon of the country that they played for - not that they are born in. There are bundles of players from the UK that have represented the Republic of Ireland (ROI) over the years and they invariably represented with an Irish Tricolour. It caused some confusion on the Burnley FC page - as there manager was born in Scotland but was capped by the ROI, although that seems to have been sorted now. RicoRichmond (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
lol. I found one here too, makes you wonder if there's very often any left after they're blocked... still, thanks for declining their unblock request :). Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ClueBotArciver
Weird stuff, eh? I just read their unblock request...sort of the text version of fingernails on a blackboard. I've had rollbacker for less than two months, so I'm easily fooled (AGF and all that that entails). It took me a while to understand those edits were not kosher. Glad it worked out, though. I appreciate the positive feedback. Tiderolls20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes.
Tonywalton, it is wonderful to make your aquaintance. Thank you for your time, efforts, dedication, and bravery in the recent ANI. I think the true merits of character is someone who stands up for the defenseless when their is no possible benefits from doing so. You are a wonderful editor and I am so glad that wikipedia has you as an editor. God bless. Ikip (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Article Rescue Squadron
Not sure if you are a member yet, but in case you are not, here is an invitation to help other editors in need, and develop wikipedia at the same time:
I must regretfully decline. I really think all this "deletionist/inclusionist" polarisation is, to be honest, pointless and nonproductive and I'm not about to start playing politics. TonywaltonTalk00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That is actually the name I use when on the internet. I have been using it for years. My name is Givnan, but I use this other name, just like a lot of other people who have a nickname. I am not usurping anyone else's identity by using my own nickname, which, in fact, I even get called by people I know. I just prefer to use this nickname when I am on Wikipedia, for no particular reason, other than that I would like to see that people know I speak Japanese, as, after all, I use the language desk every day to answer people's Qs about Japanese.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
: 27 April 2009
