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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

ok im sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolgtfo (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks again--Lolgtfo (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank for blocking the disruptive editor. Is there any way you could semi-protect the page so IPs cannot edit? It continues to be disrupted. Thanks! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't me! :I did semi-protection, and then User:Fastily applied full protection  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping in that article against that vandal.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Always happy to revert any vandals  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For indefinitely blocking the Cleo22 account. His entire editing history from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 has been to remove sourced background info from biography articles, and nothing else but this. Thank you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

hello Ronhjones,

i just saw you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_2.0 and the images in it

can i ask why? i see it has something to do with the copyrights of the Masterpiece 2.0 project. this is in fact an art project of me and a friend. i also personally own the url the project is on and the pictures i've uploaded to accompany the article i took myself. can you please tell me how i have to submit it if not like this?

thank you in advance for taking the time to read this and hopefully react

greetings, Baschz Baschz (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the instructions for donating copyright material, once you have donated the meterial, then you can construct the page for it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

why did you say i vandilized when i did not! omg i did vandalize before but this time i did not and you said this is your final warning? all i did was say "Some polish names are Zamerski and Nagi." whats wrong with that? ummm, yes you did? after i posted that it said that you were giving me a final warning!?

Nothing. That edit has not been reverted.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you click the "this edit" links on your talk page, then you will the edit that has been reverted, warnings are only given after a page revert.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

do you like ice cream —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.5.208 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not this time of year...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

hi one question did you read this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence if not read it then u will see that ist false and thats rassistical !! ok bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.134.46.216 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing 97.1% of the page content will always be seen as vandalism. If there are major issues with the page then the way forward is to discuss on the talk page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

one question did you read this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence if not read it then u will see that is false and furthermore rassistical it should be forbidden to post that here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydet9000 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

y?????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrvhskid (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a question?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

i think this user should be perma-banned instead of blocked, they have been vandalizing for years, most vandalizers get perma-banned for doing 15-20 vandalism edits, user 169.199.121.2 has done WAY over that. what is your opinion on this? -- ..::Abb 615::.. 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

IP addresses are not permanently blocked - see WP:IPBLENGTH  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

oh, yeah wasn't thinking about that ..::Abb 615::.. 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind revoking the talk page privileges for User:203.208.94.226‎? Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Talk page blocked for the same duration as the block.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel my edit was unwarrented. If you can find a bathroom for under a hundred dollars please do enlighten me as mine needs redoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.97.201 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You won't buy anything with a hundred dollars here, it's not legal tender. Please try to keep a Worldwide view as possible. This is not WikipediaUSA, it's English Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

Hey Ron. I didn't want to post one of those "you're wrong" posts at the help desk (as some do), so I thought I'd just let you know here that subpage drafts should be listed at the uncontroversial section of WP:RM, so if the request is made properly is should take minutes or hours rather than 7 days. See e.g., Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft, the page that is linked for users in the template at the top of a subpage draft created through the article wizard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There you go, you learn something everyday! Thanks for that. I've only noticed ones that were in the "wait 7 days" part - which in some ways is a better option, as I have seen other users make comments - usually showing that the page is not yet ready.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole article wizard process is a bit muddled right now. It might indeed be better for them to be directed to list it at the regalar RM process, though those are really directed to controversial moves, and I'm not sure that a move that a user can always make themselves (uncontroversially) by waiting four days and making ten edits can be said to be controversial when it's requested instead. The problem is that userspace drafts are being missed by the regular processes that directly created articles go through. We'll work it out eventually.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user keeps on doing false information in List of programs broadcast by Teletoon Retro a lot of vandalism and insults I suggest the blockage for that one I articulate I erase it and you go back to put it. --Hugo Felix - Messages Here 01:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review destructive edits to Teabagging by User:68.25.103.189. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor has filled in an edit summary, so as I'm not a US person I cannot comment on whether his comments make sense or not, it's clearly not an obvious vandalism. You need to look for a US based person to make a rational decision. Also have a look at WP:WAR - that might help you decide on a course of action.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hum I'm a bit puzzled by this since the request hasn't been fullfilled...However if you want to do it, simply copy paste

<!--===============DOI================-->
#if:{{{DOI|}}}
  |{{{Sep|,}}}&#32;{{citation/identifier  |identifier=doi |input1={{{DOI|}}}  |input2={{{DoiBroken|}}} }}
}}{{
<!--============  Misc. Identifier ============-->
  #if: {{{ID|}}}
  |{{
     #if: {{{Surname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname1|}}}{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}{{{Periodical|}}}{{{Title|}}}{{{TransItalic|}}}
     |{{{Sep|,}}}&#32;{{{ID}}}
     |{{{ID}}}
   }}
}}{{
<!--============  ISBN ============-->
  #if: {{{ISBN|}}}
  |{{{Sep|,}}}&#32;{{citation/identifier  |identifier=isbn |input1={{{ISBN|}}} }}
}}{{
<!--============  ISSN ============-->
  #if: {{{ISSN|}}}
  |{{{Sep|,}}}&#32;{{citation/identifier  |identifier=issn |input1={{{ISSN|}}} }}
}}{{
<!--============  OCLC ============-->
  #if: {{{OCLC|}}}
  |{{{Sep|,}}}&#32;{{citation/identifier  |identifier=oclc |input1={{{OCLC|}}} }}
}}{{
<!--============  PMID ============-->
  #if: {{{PMID|}}}
  |{{{Sep|,}}}&#32;{{citation/identifier  |identifier=pmid |input1={{{PMID|}}} }}
}}{{
<!--============  PMC ============-->
  #if: {{{PMC|}}}
  |{{
     #if: {{{URL|}}}
     |{{{Sep|,}}}&&#32;{{citation/identifier  |identifier=pmc |input1={{{PMC|}}} }}
     |{{only in  print|{{{Sep|,}}}&#32;{{citation/identifier  |identifier=pmc |input1={{{PMC|}}} }} }}<!--Should  only display by default in print-->
   }}
}}{{
<!--============ BIBCODE ============-->
  #if: {{{Bibcode|}}}
  |{{{Sep|,}}}&#32;{{citation/identifier  |identifier=bibcode |input1={{{Bibcode|}}} }}
}}{{
<!--============  Archive data, etc ===========-->

In the relevant section of {{citation/core}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are confused, the so am I! I dropped in because there was the editprotected template, then I saw "Done and tested" that's what an admin might add after doing the edit - so my assumption was that the edit was done, and the template not closed off. Anyway, I've done the copy and paste for you now.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! That was about MSGJ's request to put the code in the sandbox. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your recent help with the protected edit requests. I have one small suggestion though. For the edit summary, it would be more helpful to editors to have a brief description of the edit rather than simply "as per talk page" or similar. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep it in mind.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The main reason I tagged it is because I wasn't prepared to shuffle through four years of edits. I tagged it mostly to bring attention to it. Think we should complain they're copyvio of us?HalfShadow 00:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe we can - as we have not been attributed - I know there is a standard letter somewhere in WP. In reality, I suppose nothing will happen.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a third opinion in the temporary semi-protection of the article 82nd Academy Awards. Gage (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another admin has beat me to it. I see it has a week's protection.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i have replied to your message on my talk pageDrumnbass100 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

that was rude to delete my article it was not a test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.184.141.136 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I have not deleted any article created by you - because IPs cannot create one.
2. No one owns any article.
3. If you mean this addition, then you have added no text at all, just clicked a few of the standard buttons - hence it is a test.
   

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with the edit warring at Lorna Fitzgerald 5 albert square (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the user is asking to be unblocked though :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If only (s)he would come up with a solid reference...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to edit for a reason. Are you/were you User:68.25.103.189? -12.7.202.2 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My IP addresses are at the top of this page, 68.25.103.189 is United States Baltimore Sprint Pcs - a few thousand miles away... This edit was not constructive and not a valid reason.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If he calls me something, can't I do so likewise? Also, my edits of Teabagger were for cause, and all the reverts of those edits were without cause. I request even-handedness here in considering my claim that Teabagger and Teabagging have gone their separate ways. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any point? It a great way to start a war. Please always try to be civil, editors resulting to name calling are more likely to have their edits reverted.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones,

When you have a moment, could you take a look at the Judith Butler page? Here is the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judith_Butler&action=history It seems like there is a potential WP:BLP issue going on. I made one revert but it seems like a potential edit war so I am stepping back. I wonder if this page needs semi-protection? Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Does not look like a very reliable source to me either, I've added 1 week semi, see how it fares.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you've been remarkably helpful. Thanks so much. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see here —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They are writing vandalism in the I articulate Boomerang (Latin American TV channel) On something future of boomerang 2 which fails to match and please that page in order that they stop blocks insults and insulting and inventing información.Gracias and greetings.

• PD:An anonymous user is this insulting and vandalizando I articulate the mentioned.

--Hugo Felix - Messages Here 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they waited until the short protection was over. See what they think about a longer one.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey sorry man. i was just fooling around. Yesterday I wrote stuff about swedish break dancers. You guys are sharp. Sorry to be a nuisance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.245.65 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We're sharp because we have to be. We have the tools to do that.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whats your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.31.45.3 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem, obviously you do. You can't be blocked otherwise you could not write on this page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

... for clearing the garbage from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just another life in the day of a vandal fighter. :-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the error of my ways now. I was actually meant to edit your page with that fun fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.198 (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Fresh off your block, IP 72.53.86.52 continues to engage in vandalism. A bit tough to follow the extent of it/warnings, as it always deletes (as it is allowed to) warnings it has received. Thought you might wish to take a look, possible. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, as you weighed in and took action regarding the deletion of an entire talk page comments for article on Mike Fraysse, would you please watch for the same vandalism in the main article (the removal of entire sourced, factual sections), or please advise how to go about requesting such assistance from Wikipedia? I apologize for my unfamiliarity with the procedures to address instances of wholesale information deletion in an attempt to skew the reader's perception of a subject, but nonetheless thank you for your action on the Talk page in question.^[1]--Cyclingfansanon (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw your comment while vandal fighting with huggle, so I started Firefox and left him a message. Whether some other vandal fighter will see the deletion will depend on the time of day, who is doing some checking, and the frequency of vandalism (can rise to 20 pages of vandalism per minute, with 150-200 pages per minute changed - thankfully huggle filters out the better editors.) Normally deleting large amounts of data will get reverted and the editor will get a standard warning - any editor can give out these warnings on reverting vandalism, they are listed at WP:WARN.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the Mike Fraysse article seems to have a retinue of revisionists trying to cover-up factual material unfavorable to his reputation. If one noteworthy section - complete with references to credible, mainstream sources like Sports Illustrated - is being deleted, how does one secure assistance against such action? ThanksCyclingfansanon (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The entire talk page was deleted again as well. I tried my best to revert it, but I am not sure how to protect the entries against total deletion.Cyclingfansanon (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tricky. Protection would not normally be allowed, as the vandalism is not that often, this is one of those case where a few users have to keep the page in their watchlist. The edits could easily be the work of one person, so I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.183.117.217.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that the edits have been done again and entire talk pages and factual info deleted. This is very disillusioning because I am only somewhat skilled in editing and to have to contend with Nazi-like actions is taxing. Regardless, thanks for what you do.Azx2 (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is obviously creating accounts as per WP:DUCK, just for the purpose of deleting this material, I've extended the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.183.117.217, and given him a "4im" warning. It is obvious that (s)he is not going to stop, so I have given you 1 months protection to the article, to allow the WP:SPI process to complete - hopefully that will block those users and the IP address, and that might stop new accounts from being created.

Thank you for your action to protect the integrity of the article.Azx2 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you take another look at this block? Based on [1] it seems that the user is simply blanking their own talk page. Tim Song (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== User talk:Xbcj0843hck3 ==

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it looks like you and another user got in an edit war with this guy over the content of his own talk page, and then you blocked him for it. Please tell me I am missing something, because on the surface this does not look good. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess me an Tim are talking about the same thing actually, that's just his old name. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The user had a new name, if he had logged on under his new name (or even at least given a reason in the edit summary) there would be no problem. Since he had a new name why was he still editing under the old one? I'm not sure what he was up to either. Since he wants the other name as his new name, then why ask for the old one to be unblocked?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones. Without trying to be argumentative, may i ask how you determined consensus on Talk: William I of England? It seems to me that the two main arguments were, "It's better", and "This is what the rules say", and neither of those is especially convincing. (And, yes, i'm quite aware that i used one of those two!) It seems to me, however, that in a situation like this lack of consensus normally means that no change happens is the answer. Again, i'm not trying cause an argument, nor even continue the discussion, merely to find your thought process. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 07:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not about achieving 100% for a move, if we had to always wait for that, then most of pages would not move, it's about getting a suitable majority . I know it's a !vote, but it's a good place to start, so we have 7 for and 4 against, so a quite reasonable majority - the question is then "do the arguments put forward weigh more heavily to swing the balance one way or the other". i.e. are there any simple "Support per nom" or "support - because I like it", which would have less weight than someone detailing which policy should be followed and why. Now a lot were quoting WP:COMMONNAME, others were basing their arguments on WP:NCROY, neither argument stood head and shoulders above the other, as you said "neither of those is especially convincing". I did have a refresh of the policies suggested - COMMONNAME - well the name is indeed common, no one denies that. As for NCROY - which when I read it had the line very near the top of the page "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." which I have to say is not the best worded statement (some commas would be nice), and I therefore think could be interpreted in more than one way -

1. If there is no problem, then use the common name
2. Use the rules, unless there is a problem, then use the common name.

Anyway, having decided that none of the arguments were much more worthy than the other, I let the majority win.

I noticed (later, while working through the WP:RM backlog) that there is a similar problem with Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - which I didn't close, as I do have my own view on that one (and is at present 30 for and 15 against). But that page does suggest in some places that NCROY may need changing - maybe that needs doing first to be more clear cut one way or the other, then these pages change requests could be consigned to history?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i see. Thanks for your thoughts. To be honest, i think they are a bit flawed, as in my opinion the situation had no consensus, and that ought to lead to status quo, not a democratic result ~ but maybe that's why you're the admin and i'm not! Anyway, i don't think it's important enough to argue over, so i won't. Thanks again. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 06:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not know there was a sandbox mode for Wiki. i will take sandbox into my thought for futher editing practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.135.172.151 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy the sandbox, if you decide to create your own account, then you can create your own sandbox in your user space.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ronhjones. Gowlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment added. Feel free to unblock if you think he will follow policies now.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to look now... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked him, with advice (following your example) of discussion via the article's talk page. I have also advised him that should his behaviour continue as it did prior to the block, he would be re-blocked. I hope that I phrased it OK - it's the first unblock I've performed (apart from one when I was a little quick off the trigger!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks just fine to me. I'll keep him on the watch list for now... Let's hope I don't see him in Huggle.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please I request that they protect the page of Tooncast Because there are insults toward to the canal, vandalism and false information be more than enough Boomerang 2 I suggest the protection of this paginate. For favor this user Juliohfv1 My registered user's name has been imitated a vandal that puts news is false and you go back to put him and insults toward my person I suggest the blockage to imitate my user's name registered.thanks.--Hugo Felix - Messages Here 04:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 has done this for you (before I read this message), and has blocked User:Juliohfv1. Always report such actions at WP:AIV, rather than asking me direct - although I don't mind, but I might not read the message for several hours.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 12:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Pleasee see that the text from Fethullah Gulen's talkpage is blanked. It is important information and indicates unacceptable behavior of an editor vandalizing and blanking the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The text is correctly archived in Talk:Fethullah_Gülen/Archive_6 as was stated in an earlier edit summary - it was not blanked. Please do not restore archived talks, just start a new one. Restored archived talks will be reverted, we do not need the data twice - refer to the archive if you want to, in a new talk.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an important talk. It shows Arnoutf's unacceptable behavior disapproved by the community. He is always blanking the pages and claiming innocence to continue distortion on the page as before. The talk is still active and should not be archived in my opinion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It can hardly be active, if no one has added any comment for almost a month.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Last edit was by user 141.217.43.158 on 1 March 2010, 20 days ago. Arnoutf still around the page with the same behavior. Arnoutf contribute nothing but consistently alienating others from editing and using page blanking as a strategy to hide his behavior from new comers. This creates a viscous cycle and doing no good for the article. I am not sure why admins do not address this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page is perfectly normal behaviour. Three weeks without one comment is a reasonably acceptable time, as it was - the talk was only between you two anyway, no one else had made a single comment. Maybe you should discuss the ideal "time for archive" - I've set it to 21d, as that's what has been done before, but just change that parameter in the header of the page, if you arrive at anew consensus. In any case the data is there in the archive for all to see, and can be easily linked to like this - Talk:Fethullah_Gülen/Archive_6#POV_template_-_RE_Old_version_again

Thank you for the comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Did not want to bother you on talk about this, but since the anon did anyway. Fethullah Gulen has been the target of an extremely determined sockpuppeteer User:Philscirel for the last 2 years. In the last year the page was semi-protected for about 6 months, and the other 6 months has been about maintaining the neutral version against repeated sockpuppet attacks. The latest iteration was in February and Anon:71.72.81.83 was blocked then as sockpuppet of Philscirel. The page was semiprotected for a month, and guess what, the protection expired yesterday. I have asked for a lengthy semi protection and reported the anon editor as sockpuppet. I am now awaiting these procedures to conclude; and will not edit Gulen page, or talk page until then (after which I will reset to the last good version). Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I merely altered the spelling from "aluminium" to "aluminum". It was not vandalism. 76.126.21.16 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not correct - the name is aluminium - the other page is a redirect. Wikipedia uses the IUPAC name.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

I'm assuming it was a bot of yours that undid my edits to s. You should probably take a look at it, my edits were not, in fact, vandalism: the vandal was the editor before me (I have since reverted both our edits, as the version he vandalized also had what I edited in). 75.154.86.103 (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you'll definitely want to look at that, it's undoing them again, when I am clearly not the one making the vandal edits. 75.154.86.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

This is wrong {{dablink|Due to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)|technical restrictions]], '''ſ''' ([[long s]]), '''S#''' ([[Script.NET]]), and '''S#arp''' ([[S♯arp]]) redirect here.}} - those pages do not redirect to S.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If I search "ſ", it goes to "s". If I put in the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ſ it goes to "s". Your edits have also been removing the infobox along the side. 75.154.86.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

OK, I see what you are getting at - I was clinking the links in the hatnote you added and was not getting "S" reloaded. Sorry - I'll kill the warnings.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you put the applicable hatnotes and sidebar back on the page, as it seems like a script was autoreverting them when I did it. 75.154.86.103 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Already reverted back to your last version. P.S. Not a bot, just manual vandal fighting.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we might need some protection on Bart Stupak. It seems to be under attack by anons. I have reverted it twice and so have you. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I did think of that earlier. I hoped it would stop. Obviously not. Now sorted...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

the internal revenue service is the strong arm of a dictator which is not embodied in one person but in a collection of institutions and agencies

this is the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.143.129 (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Then provide a reliable source and you can put it in.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Do u like eggs just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.89.3 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't changed anything regarding -ise-ize. The only thing I changed was the pronunciation of countach which is clearly wrong and I don't understand the constant reverting when the only thing to do is to listen to the audio file. Then you will see the current version is wrong. soundfile, clearly, there is no voiceless alveolar plosive (t) before the voiceless postalveolar fricative (ʃ). In the Lamborghini Countach article this is already done properly, why is it reverted on Ferruccio Lamborghini? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is your diff edit. Besides the one sound small pronounciation, you also at the same time added a few links, changed "unionised" (UK spelling) to "unionized" (US spelling), changed "1963 onwards" (UK usage) to "1963 forwards" (US usage), just after User:Brutaldeluxe had sorted it all out - thus the edit summary did not mainly reflect the actions done, the language variety was altered against policy and hence it was reverted. I have no issue with the sound pronunciation - I'm not an expert in that field, if you want to alter just that part, that's fine with me.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, believe me or not, I did not change any of that :S I have no idea why it says I did...wait I think I know, I must have clicked on undo or something but I swear I didn't see that he had changed a lot more except for the pronunciation. So sorry for that. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the undo feature has to be used a bit carefully - too many vandals make what are "possible reasonable edits", and try to hide a bad edit much further down the page. Doesn't work once it's been seen a few times - we check the diff pages for changes, and (in huggle) every changed/deleted letter is shown in red.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am former sulmues, and would like to use now gollomboc. You can user usercheck to verify. I am the same person, Sulmues, with 5.5k edits and 66 articles. Please revert your change in the sulmues page. Unfortunately, I messed up with the script to enforce a wikibreak and can't log in again as Sulmues. --Gollomboc (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you know if I can just rename/move Sulmues to Gollomboc? --Gollomboc (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not allowed - would it help if I deleted User:Sulmues/monobook.js?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please do, even though I don't know if it's going to help! --Gollomboc (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's gone  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It worked! What do I do with Gollomboc? --sulmues (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I look it up and get back to you  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to your response! --sulmues (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you post something on this user's talk page that will let other user's know he's not vandalizing another user's talk page? It would be best actually if an admin changed Sulmues userpage and not Gollomboc. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC

All now sorted out. Standard userbox for second account added to both pages of Sulmues, rest of page blanked, and he is not going to use that account again.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

...please stop re-editing my article about DJ Mindfreak and let me finish it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoZitive11 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not yours, it belongs to Wikipedia. Stop removing the template - it's not allowed by the main author.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I will also point out as well that you cannot remove speedy deletion templates from pages that you have created yourself. Wikipedia will decide if the article is notable enough 5 albert square (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

...yes, of course. I'm new to wikipedia... just let me find and edit some more info. DJ Mindfreak is my favourite musician after Neophyte, and I want that other people can learn about him and his music. I'm reading manuals right now about editing pages... I will not do anything with your tags and all that stuff, just continiue adding information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoZitive11 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Note - as you have put up a {{hangon}} - add an reason here - Talk:DJ Mindfreak.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I go to dexter high school, and i know for a fact that are colors are maroon and gold, please change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.160.250 (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It was reverted for use of strikethrough - I've edited the page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article. --  Θakster   07:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ég biðjumst velvirðingar inconvinience en það er gegn trú minni að ekki gera ekki uppbyggjandi breytingar. Skilaboð mig aftur og ég mun breyta vinum í plast skeið.

Blashyrkh (Mighty Ravendark)

The grim and frostbitten kingdoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trveicelandicblackmetal (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a language I know.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you for reverting the vandalism on my page.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm sure you would do the same for me.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the same on my page. Dave Golland (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotta cork handy? HalfShadow 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd give it up as a bad job... They'll only keep you on a hook... Wait until they vandalise the talk page with some nice choice phrases and then I'll block it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point I'm more interested in seeing his smile vanish when he realises he can't revert. Petty, I realise, but... HalfShadow 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Why is Monday night always so busy lately? Is there nothing on the TV?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A massive thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page.--Welshsocialist (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I get my article title to appear in that little separate box underneath the search bar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetabotnik (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's automatic, but not instantaneous. Note bottom of page - WP:SRCH  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.59.105 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just stick to adding good data, and no one will bother you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi i would like to inform you about macechap123. he is apparently a vangaurd editor. which is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PwnedByMe (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems he's been found out and blocked..  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You moved several dozen articlse from Nationality captives in Guantanamo to Nationality detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

Your edit summaries say WP:RM. But I don't see any section in WP:RM for these renamings.

It seems to me that, even if there was a consensus to change the names of these articles so they called the individuals "detainees" not the more inherently neutral "captives" there wouls still remain the choice of the trailing portion of the name. I am very curious how it was decided that the remaineder of those names should be changed to "in Guantanamo Bay". Can you fill me in?

The USA has the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, on a 45 mile^2 parcel of leased land, and it has the Guantanamo Bay detention camps, but the inner half of Guantanamo Bay is Cuban land unambiguously under Cuban administration. I suggest that makes "in Guantanamo Bay" a poor choice of article name.

Could you please direct my attention to where these new names were discussed? Geo Swan (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They were all done as a multiple page move, on two pages, as a multiple RM is limited to 20 moves, so you will find the main pages for the two halves here...

• Talk:Sudanese detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Talk:Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay

No one opposed either of the proposed moves over the standard seven day wait.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: There appears to be a new issue with User:RM bot - which should flag all the talk pages with the "home" page of the requested move. Seems it is not doing the whole set. I've added a comment in the appropriate section of the bot's talk page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your recent block of 198.60.1.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), you may not have noticed that the IP belongs to a public library, so the vandal is likely long gone. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I did notice it, but they have done it twice before, and I've kept the block shorter than I would for the third strike.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being such an excellent admin. Keep it up, The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. It's nice to see someone approves - normally the only feedback is negative :-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Snap - hey User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale - you have an INTP on your user page. It takes one to know one...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Should National Gallery (disambiguation) (upper case G) now be deleted or redirected to National gallery (disambiguation) (lower case g), or in fact the latter moved to the former? I would have thought the upper case G would be the best disambig page, as all the articles on the disambig page have the upper case G in the title. Ty 01:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

PS the red banner at the bottom of this page cuts off the last line of the post (actually the sig) on my (low res) screen... Ty 01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeeeesss. I've moved the National gallery (disambiguation) to National Gallery (disambiguation), and the old page redirects. I think the big "G" looks better - maybe because I'm English and I'm used to seeing "National Gallery"...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. Do we need National gallery (disambiguation) any more? If deleted, will any links go automatically to National Gallery (disambiguation), just as National gallery goes to National Gallery? Ty 01:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point - one way to find out...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And you are correct, the Wiki software makes it jump to the National Gallery (disambiguation). I think we are all done with that one now.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work sorting it all out. Ty 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Page of Threven? I do not understand what was wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyboylou (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It was tagged for speedy deletion (you have the message on your talk page), and as it met the criteria, it was deleted. Pages that take some time to prepare are best made in your user space, then you can wait until the page is ready before moving it to article space - the "Axx" criteria at WP:CSD do not apply to user space pages - your page was deleted under option "A1". I will move the deleted article for you, to your user space for you to improve - it will be located at User:Crazyboylou/Threven  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also added a welcome template to you talk page, with various links to Wikipedia policies to help you create a new page that will last.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you added page protection to Talk:Janeane Garofalo ... could you also protect Talk:Rip Torn? The same IPs have been active on both talk pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So they have.  Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

05-April-2010: This is just an FYI that Template:Rnd is ready for update, to bypass the small subtemplate {Rnd/a} and reduce Convert nesting by 1 more level, against the template-nesting limit. This change should affect nearly 307,000 pages, and drop 307,000 wikilinks to {Rnd/a}, which will become almost unused. See counts in database report:

• WP:Database reports/Templates with the most transclusions (for Rnd & Rnd/a)

The full talk-page topics are in Template_talk:Rnd:

• Template_talk:Rnd#Rnd uses too many subtemplates for Convert
• Template_talk:Rnd#Condensing Rnd by combining Rnd/a
• Template_talk:Rnd#Change Rnd to bypass Rnd/a (the edit request )

Those topics describe the issue & examples. -Wikid77 00:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have worked OK. It will take a while before all the uses of "Rnd/a" go from the system. Once they do, you can suggest deletion.

P.S. Good timing - another 20 mins and I would have gone to bed (even with today (monday) being a Bank Holiday here)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted Yury Laptev and Mikhail Trinoga as being copyright infringements from kremlin.ru. You may or may not be aware that we have permission to utilise Kremlin.ru materials as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Kremlin.ru. The permission that I obtained from the Press Secretary to the Russian President is available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlin_authorisation-English.pdf. Can you please undelete those two articles as they are not copyright violations. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ron, just letting you know that I have undeleted these two as we do indeed have a permission. Please let us know if you have any further concerns. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 5, 2010; 15:50 (UTC)

It would be useful if there was something on the talk page of each article, otherwise it's going to be hit again and again! Other editors will see what looks like a copyviolation and put a CSD tag on it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have created {{Kremlinru}} for the placement at the bottom of such articles. This is supposed to add the hidden category of Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Kremlin.ru (as yet nothing is appearing in the category for some reason). --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's hidden. Ideally you need a statement on the talk page to say that it's not a copyvio, and link to the appropriate page you quoted above.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ronhjones,

With a great regret, I noticed that you have deleted the page Zuzanna Janin in English, (a twins one of Polish version in Polish Wikipedia, http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuzanna_Janin). I am trying to create this page / info about one of the most important Polish contemporary artist: Zuzanna Janin. Just the translation from the Polish one.

I put GENERAL info about the artists acctivity, which is acctually used with artists permition all over the world. It is just general info - facts from CV, and you may alway find them "copied". Acctually this is authourised by artists the only CV she accpept and published. So I can only use this. Other interpretation in the case of artist's carier may be just wrong. I expalned it in TALK. But honesly speaking I am not so familiar with internet, well just was thinking that it is some "cultural-info-duty" towards the Polish Contempoarary Art, to well inform people about it and fill this gap.

So I have decided to create the English version of Polish one about Zuzanna Janin, couse I meat the real curiosity about artists with other art-lovers and we couldn't find the English info about artits.

How differently you can write about exhibition's titles and places / names of Museums and Galleries in which the artists took part? We shoul use this general info. What do you suggest? Maybe we can put it as a TRANSLATION of the existing Polish page, which is acctually in use already 5 years or so. this a copy about the history of artists CV from only public domain resources, which can be copied without permission. but even that I have an artists permission for using this CV as authorised by herself.

^[2]

there is athe same in Polish on:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuzanna_Janin

and here: http://lokal30.pl/zuzanna__janin

thank you for your help, Z. B. Baranowska / lokal_30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokal30 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe English Wikipedia is more strict than the Polish one, maybe the Polish one has not yet seen the possible copyright violation - I don't know. Just because it's already on the Polish Wikipedia does not mean that it can just be put here. If you wish to use material that is already published on a non-Wikipedia web site, then you must follow one of the procedures in donating copyright material, otherwise it will get tagged again. Ideally you need to get an appropriate creative commons license placed on the http://lokal30.pl/zuzanna__janin web page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Or a better solution is to re-write the article in your own words rather than copying the text.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While living as young lad in El Rocko, Mexico, I was a youthful playmate of Mr. Akers and have intimate knowledge of his past. However, I have recently fallen out of touch with Davido and am not aware of the falsehood of his statements regarding his past. This however, is the truth, and I would ask that you refrain from editing history the way it actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.133.217 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Akers is from Lexington, Kentucky, not your made-up city. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Supply a reliable source and we'll be happy to let the edit stand, otherwise it will be reverted as WP:BLP vandalism.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Listen to me, douchebag. I'm being very serious about my shit on nano-thermite. Nano-Thermite is a non-existing thing. It's bullshit that the Danish scientist, Niels Harrit (Termit-Niels) came up with, because he needed media attention, so he could sell his shitty book about a non-existing product. Do your goddamn research. Termit-Niels is nothing but a wrecked homeless.

What a happy bunny you are.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.113.38.175&diff=cur

Read WP:PROFANE - "a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols.". Put it back. - 87.113.38.175 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. Can't put it back, you have done it first.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You won't be able to login to Huggle for a while, due to a recent change in the login system. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: User talk:TheCarterVI. I noticed you gave the final warning, looks like he's still not getting the message. Shall I do the honors? ;) -- œ^™ 08:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you like - (s)he's just scanning magazine pages, with no regard to copyright.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The latest one - if one exports the pic and blow up the bottom corner - it looks like "Ale*andro Tum*s, NG staff, Shelley Sperry" (not all the letters resolve) - Shelley Sperry writes for the National Geographic. I've tagged it for CSD - maybe (s)he will see the light... If not...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why you're reporting users to WP:AIV when you're an admin so can do the blocking yourself? Are you doing them by mistake or wanting a second opinion or...? Peter 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sort of an error - I'm in Huggle, normally I see the automatic AIV report (as the warning level goes from "4" to "AIV" and I fire up Firefox and then block - sadly Huggle can't directly block any more. Sometimes Huggle does not always show the current warning level (e.g it shows "3" - then when it checks the talk page, it realizes there's a No.4 and sends a report to AIV, (that can take a while) by then I moved on to other pages, and didn't notice the log at the bottom of the Huggle screen.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Ron. I don't know the protocol for suggesting changes on a page, but reading the page Fossil Fuel phase out it's clear that it is not encyclopedic. I thought the way to flag the page was to drop a subst:prod tag at the top, and explain why I tagged it that way.

You suggested the Talk page in order to discuss changes. In fact I contributed an in-depth explanation as to what was wrong with the page. But that talk page is dead, no one visits. The article has been flagged for improvement since March 2009, and nothing is changing. Beyond that, I took one step back and realized, the page is not encyclopedia material anyway. The page is a call to action, a statement of advocacy, not an encyclopedia entry.

Please advise on the appropriate Wikipedia steps. I still think the page itself should be scrapped and fragments might be appropriately moved into the page for Coal. (I noted this in my subst:prod|reason .

I don't know the protocol for exchanging messages either - I'd appreciate it if you could notify me via my ip address, and I will come and read your full reply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.252.155 (talk • contribs)

No, no, no. You were right, I was wrong. You have no message, it is gone! As I was vandal fighting (in huggle), I saw an edit to a page that (on first impressions) looked like it should have been on the talk page - only when I reverted it, did I see the code for the PROD template - so I immediately rolled back the message and the page. The PROD will do nicely - someone may remove it (any one is entitled to do so). If that happens then the only way forward would be to put it up for article for deletion - then the community is forced to discuss if the page should stand, be changed, merged, or deleted.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		For reverting vandalism to my userpage -- Rrburke (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. No problem, plenty of others do the same for me.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I see you have deleted a page made by a sockpuppet. This one: Israel and state terrorism. I never saw the content and it was probably full of POVs, but perhaps the subject is notable as per United States and state terrorism. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you a copy of the text by e-mail  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! So, you do not object in recreating the article? With a quick glance, the content seems quite terrible. I'm not sure how much of this can be actually used, but I suppose that many will transform it once it's up. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it, because another editor tagged it for deletion as an attack page. It appeared to be so, and was deleted. If you wish to re-create, but with different non-POV text, then I don't see a problem.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then. See you around! --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I know you probably mean well by that comment, but I have been an active member of wikipedia for several years now, and I do know how things work. I was merely reversing vandalism that people are doing to the article because Greg Wyshynski recently linked to it in a twitter post and joked about vandals changing the info, so of course they are now doing so. All I did was change one line back to the CORRECT information, which is in the article cited as a reference, specifically #3^ "Greg Wyshinski Bio". Blogs With Balls." I was in no way attempting to vandalize that article myself. --Lizzysama (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the article was getting hammered tonight some some reason, not easy to sort out the real data, I've rolled back your message.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For deleting that Bruno mars thing. It was the first time since joining this site a few days ago that I've used speedy delete. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia free from such nonsense pages.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You reverted my edit to the page Barry Hayles despite the fact it was perfectly constructive? Find that hard to understand, could you explain what I did wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.13.166 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is based on facts from reliable sources, not on editor's opinions. The phrase "He is also well known for being the messiah." fails on two counts - one it is original research, secondly he does not fit the definition of a messiah.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough but how did you edit it back so quickly

Huggle  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage! ^^ GorillaWarfare ^talk 21:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to help. That won't be the first (sadly, or the last) time I reverted a userpage.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I was just wondering why you feel the need to have a full protection on Toll roads in Scotland. As you have arranged things, Toll roads in Scotland now redirects to Toll roads in the United Kingdom. What if someone wanted to write about toll roads in Scotland before the United Kingdom was created - you are preventing this page being changed into a full article. Any reason you wish to prevent that possibility? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It can be easily unprotected if anyone wants to write such an article, they just have to write in their user space and ask for it to be moved. The page was was created following a split from the main page which was later decided not to be a good idea and should be merged back in, it was protected to stop the article being split again against consensus. I would doubt if there is enough data to make a suitable article for Scotland prior to the Union - However, I would also suggest that if there is data then it might be more useful to rename the main Article to be Toll roads in the British Isles - which would stop all concern about country borders, and the date of their conception.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my comments on board - Toll roads in Great Britain is much more sensible. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Prees-branch.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind taking a look at the recent contributions of this editor, please. You issued a 1 month block back in February for converting infobox dates from templates to text and other disruptive edits, and since the block ran out, they've been doing precisely the same thing all over again, to some of the same articles. I'm not quite sure what the editor's problem is, but they obviously don't care to follow MOS guidelines, and they don't care that practically all of their edits have been undone by other editors. Anything you can do would be appreciated. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

They seem to have gone off line for now. I've posted a final warning, reminding them of their previous behaviour, then one more such edit and we can block again.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As I knew he or she inevitably would, this editor made a date format change [2], as well as a number of other unhelpful edits, both with this IP and with User:67.253.66.25. Their last block was for a month, considering their behavior, and their refusal to discuss anything, would a 3 month block be in order? The editing clearly shows that the IP is static. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Did it again, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

the location I presented for Mt dick is a correct location, the reversion you made put's an ISLAND in the middle of the Mainland of New Zealand not off shore where it ought to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.11.9 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And this is also correct - "This is where tracy's mom sucked butter milk through a straw.". I think not. If you have a reference that location is incorrect, then please quote it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Granted about the Tracy thing even though he said it's true and I'll provide a phone number if needed. I didn't realise about the sand box till afterwards but that's why I deleted it, thanks for just throwing that right back at me with out giving me the benifit of the doubt. how ever I was wrong to have jumped to it so quickly with out reading all instructions........................................................

anyway about the cordinate, look at it on a map... and check here, http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:9-dSPM8C8aQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_outlying_islands+mount+dick&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

if you need anything else then I can get more proof, one thing is for sure though it's not next to Kingston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.11.9 (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking now. As as for the reversion - that's what happens in Wikipedia, one bad edit means all the previous ones are declared "bad" by the software.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Understand Thanks for your help...

68.230.11.9 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Bryan

This editor created International Students House, London and it was tagged by me as spam becuase it was non-neutral. It turns out that was because it was lifted from the insitution's website. The author removed the SD tag a couple of times too. However, when they then started to reword the article they kept getting reverted and then you blocked them. I'm not sure that was warranted - they were trying to fix it up. I42 (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Been blocked before, also been socking, there were recent warnings and then seen to be removing material without any reason - a good way to gain a block.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, not a user in good standing. But never-the-less, removing material did have a good reason here, so I don't think they should have been blocked for this. I42 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If (s)he asks for an unblock, I will view it in the light of your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already informed them of this thread; next move is up to them! I42 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

They have asked to be unblocked. Your block reasoning is "vandalism only account" yet I don't see any vandal edits in the time leading up to the block. It looks to me that they were acting in good faith to improve the article. Vandalism, as we all know, is defined as edits made in bad faith with the deliberate intent to damage Wikipedia. I am therefore going to unblock the account. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Not 100% GF as they were removing speedy templates, even after warning; plus deleting large chunks of data with zero explanation is always likely to cause someone to revert such an edit.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have been editing the Gerhard Pilz page and it is my family that he is destroying. I realize that some of my statements have been editorial in nature and I will try to correct this in the future, but the facts of the case are true and a valid statement on the history of his life. He may have been a great athlete, but the facts remain and they are true. I am seeking to have his coaching status pulled by the FIL and am also contacting his sponsors to ask that they stop their funding of his team on the grounds of a lack of moral turpitude. How should I go about editing this page, in a non-editorial way? I can provide phone records and emails if that would suffice. I will be contacting the US authorities to attempt to have his travel visa pulled on the grounds of continued harassment, and I believe that these are pertinent facts that should be known about the man. While the fact that Hitler was a painter is of little consequence to students of politics, it is still a valid fact...a bit over the top in the way of comparisons, but it was the first thing that popped into my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.59.58 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

He is still alive, so all edits must follow BLP policy. Any "negative" data needs full references from reliable sources, user provided data is not admissible. If his coaching status is pulled, then that could be added, you cannot state what might happen.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Pilz, take it up with Austrian Luge Federation or the International Luge Federation. Do not post it on Wikipedia unless you have verifiable research. See WP:NOR or WP:V on this. Chris (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I saw you had reverted him a couple of times, so I guessed you must have had a technical problem or something. It looks like he won't be back now anyway! :) Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you personally watching the Osage page or do you have a bot? There are some pages like Factory that I watch but have missed some bad edits and there's a bunch of work now to restore it to a prior good status. Alatari (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No bots, not watching, just a vandal fighting session with huggle. If they vandalise while I'm in Huggle, then the revert and warning is almost immediate (well within 1 minute of the edit).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones!

I saw you deleted the page I created in 2003, Jack Frazier, thinking I had copied it from page, when it's actually the other way around!!! They copied it from us. Go check it for yourself, it says so at the bottom of their page. Their page on Jackie Robinson I noted, was also taken from us.

I appreciate your labor on looking out for copyright violations here, through. We need more people like you!!

Thanks and God bless you! Antonio Ricky Martin's boy Martin 13:10, 22 aPRIL 2010 (utc)

You are quite correct, and a restore has been done. Sorry, I missed the tiny print at the bottom of the remote page. Added a note on the talk page - might stop someone else making the same mistake.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no problem my friend, it was all done in good faith! Thanks and God bless! Antonio 2,000 women man Martin 08:41, 23 aPRIL 2010 (utc)

Thanks for the revert on the luge championships and Gehrad Pliz. Really appreciate it. Also, do you happen to know Iain Williams, father of 2010 Winter Olympic women's skeleton gold medalist Amy, by chance? Chris (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No knowledge - just vandal fighting - I see you noted the message above. I don't think he will go away (which is why I protected Gehrad Pliz - the IP address changes too often, making blocking difficult and, probably in that case, making life difficult for other editors who get that IP address later.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

About proposed vandal tagging Immunize (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A recently submitted article was deleted (rightfully so) and I resubmitted it with changes without changing the original article. The old article keeps coming up. How do I get rid of the old article? The article is ESICE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inyovision (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to what you mean... The new article is called

• ESICE Eastern Sierra Institute for Collaborative Education
  

and the deleted article is still deleted and called

• ESICE Eastern Sierra Institute for Collaboration Education
  

- a very slight difference in name - "-ive" and "ion". If you are still seeing the deleted one, then it's your browser caching the page - try Ctrl-F5 (IE) or Ctrl-Shift-R (Firefox) to make the page re-load.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw that you deleted the eFront topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFront_%28eLearning_software%29 In our option this article refers to an established learning system and made a valid contribution to wikipedia. The deletion reason was due to copyright infringement. The content on eFront wiki is offered according to wikipedias copyright rules "The text of this wiki is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)"

You can check this at: http://docs.efrontlearning.net/index.php/EFrontWiki:General_disclaimer or you can contact me directly for more information since I represent this learning management system as well.

Papagel (talk)

Article restored, and CSD tag removed. It would help if your CC license was not tucked away in some remote and not well titled page (a small CC license symbol on the main page would have been far more helpful), or to highlight the allowed copy on the talk page (I have just done this for you). Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On repeat vandal tagging Immunize (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samus_Jay

What do I need to do to obtain this page, as I have received authorisation from the DJ to publish his biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.40.31 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 April 2010

Have a read at Donating copyright materials. In a brief nutshell you have 3 choices...

1. On the remote we site put a WP:CC-BY-SA license - use symbol for "Attribution Share Alike" on http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses. At the bottom of the main page is ideal.
2. Obtain an OTRS ticket and place that on the Talk:Samus Jay page. Editors will see the ticket and won't flag up for copyright violations.
3. (Often easier) - re-write the whole article in your own words - that means a complete re-write, changing an odd word here and there will not suffice.

Note that 1 & 2 mean that the author completely gives up his copyright of his article, and it can be re-produced anywhere else for free. There is no way of donating just for Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ron:

I understand that you approved the deletion of Tulay German article for copyright infringement.

The article is a copied with the permission of the author to Wikipedia, so there should not be a problem.

Would you like me to have the author send me an email? Perhaps I can post this in history?

Regards,

Ahmet Toprak

---

Director, Turkish Radio, San Francisco http://www.TurkRadio.us http://come.to/sunholiday Host, Orient Express http://www.KKUP.org/toprak.html

Listen to us through our archives: http://turkradio.podomatic.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topraka (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 April 2010

You cannot do anything yourself - the author needs to send permission to Wikipedia direct. Please see a similar problem in the above thread on "Samus Jay" for ways to use copyright material.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ron:

Thanks for pointing me to the article about donating the copyright. It seems quite involved. As it says somewhere else, it may be easier to write my own article.

What if I were to translate the Turkish Wiki page?

Regards,

Ahmet Toprak

---

Director, Turkish Radio, San Francisco http://www.TurkRadio.us http://come.to/sunholiday Host, Orient Express http://www.KKUP.org/toprak.html

Listen to us through our archives: http://turkradio.podomatic.com

Assuming the Turkish Wiki page is not a copy of another web page, then there's no problem. All WMF pages are licensed the same way, so a copy is OK. Running it through a translator(http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FT%25C3%25BClay_German), shows it's not a copy of the page that was mentioned before.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I changed the Article from Toilet Duck cause Henkel sold it to SC Johnson http://www.scjohnson.de/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=8505 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.242.74 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 April 2010

I have therefore amended the article, but without removing the old data, just indicating that they were the old producers.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

so my edit was not accepted--is this a content issue or a technical issue? as the producer/director of the work, I thought it was useful to update the reader on the fact that the documentary was chosen to represent the filmmaker's native country in an international cultural diplomacy program. since this reflects both on the content of the work and the support of InfoAge-- isn't this relevant information?

65.96.36.54 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC) rj

Technical - [[No Short Climb]] would refer to a page (as yet nonexistant) called "No Short Climb", it is unlikely that a page would ever be called "No Short Climb:"Race Workers" & America's Defense Technology" (I'm not even sure it would work with the quotes), if one wants to display a longer title to a link then the correct method would be [[No Short Climb|No Short Climb:"Race Workers" & America's Defense Technology]] - the part before the "|" is the link, and the part after is the displayed text.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in our attempts to keep Mr. Rodriguez from adding HIMSELF to our town's notable residents. I've skimmed the article's history and seen how the changes came about, mostly. While the 18. IP's have contributed some to the page at large, it is the opinion of myself and several other Burlington residents both present and former, (though I haven't performed any open or random polling of the general population), that he hasn't qualified himself as a notable resident. Given the vast number of people in Burlington who recognize the other names in the list, and then the comparitively few who would recognize Mr. Rodriguez, we feel it unfair to the others mentioned that his name and mini-bio continuously be re-added. Many of us find it in especially poor taste that he is attempting to add his own name to our, if unofficial, history. We would greatly appreciate your continued intervention in the matter. Thank you. BC1121 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I have a fairly simple rule for notable persons in Articles on places. Either they have a Wikipedia page, OR there's a reasonable reference to the entry. When these are not present they get deleted.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)