User talk:Simple Bob

TUSC token 215332a4e902068c8c9ec18ce4bc9ffe

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet heads up

Hi Bob. Do you remember the problem we had, last June, with a disruptive anon oversizing existing images, replacing some with inferior quality ones etc, and using the deprecated small wording code for captions? See your message to him here:- User talk:90.221.164.88. He then registered on Wiki as Karl1587 and continued with the same type of editing, which was then reverted by multiple editors, see his Talk page. He appears to now be using 2.125.155.114 as a sockpuppet to edit in tandem with his Karl1587 login. I wondered if you could look at the contributions of the new anon IP to see if you concur with my suspicions? Richard Harvey (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks Richard. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Somerset coa graphic

I see on Somerset you have changed the coat of arms link to File:Somerset county coat of arms.png from File:Somerset coat of arm.png, however the one you have changed to has a big banner saying "This file may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion..". If one or both are deleted we will have broken graphics in lots of articles. Any ideas?— Rod ^talk 16:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody is playing silly buggers on Wikimedia commons because the original coat of arms was uploaded by someone who didn't know which fair use rationale and licence tag to use. That image on commons is now tagged for deletion. I have uploaded a new version without the grey watermark bar and with the correct fair use rationale and licence tag. I can't remove the speedy deletion tag as the uploader but I'm confident that the speedy deletion of my image is bogus and will hopefully soon get declined. Bottom line - wait a couple of hours and all will get sorted. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ta.— Rod ^talk 17:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Do you think you could ease up on the "reverting Cornish nationalist nonsense" edit summaries? Edit summaries aren't the place to make any political points, and it's a bit juvenile, and a little offensive. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's exactly what it is and I won't back down from pointing out that others are making political points in their edits. The actions of a small number of editors constantly removing England from Cornish articles are both juvenile and offensive. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can't see the editors that spend most of their time putting references to England into Cornish-related articles for exactly the same reason, or maybe you think that's OK. Your last edit, restoring "A county of England" to a sentence where it is entirely unnecessary, and utterly irrelevant to the meaning is a case in point. Bashing minority points of view is a cheap shot, like punching a baby. It's easy to deal with political bias on Wikipedia without descending to the same level. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll just have to agree to differ. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Try to assume good faith. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Bridge

Just so you know, I plan to expand Bristol Bridge shortly in much the way I have just done Old Market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSquirrel (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice one. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GLOSS FM

Hi Bob. The references I was referring to were mainly internal (to Wikipedia) links, not external ones. They were removed by someone else who thought there were too many. Now you are saying there are not enough, so I'm in a lose-lose situation. How about you restore the page without the "citation needed" box, and discuss with the other people who have strong opinions whether it needs more or less citations? I don't mind either way really, but I can't please both of you. Once there is agreement what statements need citations and why, then I don't mind adding them in again. Radiohead319 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% clear what you are talking about. The article had no references. It did have a huge number of external links, both within the body of the article (something that is actively discouraged) and in the external links section at the bottom of the page. I see you have added a couple of references which is great (although I just tweaked them slightly). So when you say it should be restored, please clarify what you mean. To when, to what state? What you should do instead is look at the {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} templates, go find some decent references, and then add them to the article. If you can find internal links to other Wikipedia articles then add them too. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Project banners after merge

I see you have been merging several primary schools into village articles & then leaving a redirect. Do you think it would be sensible in these situations to remove the Somerset project banners (& others eg schools) from their talk pages?— Rod ^talk 08:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess as the page no longer exists that perhaps it should be removed. What would your advice be? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When I've done merges etc leaving a redirect I remove all project banners.— Rod ^talk 09:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll go and clean up after myself. Obviously, if you think I'm wrong in doing any of the deletes then please revert. I won't take it personally but will instead take to AfD because I really don't think most primaries are notable. Perhaps the same could be said for some/all of the independent prep schools. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:OUTCOMES#EDUCATION; it's not policy, nor even a guideline, it's just a descriptive. It does however state what usually happens. When I redirect, I leave the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page (after the redirect script). I change the class on the project template on the talk page to 'NA'. --Kudpung (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Castle Park images

SimpleBob, I'd like to use at least one of the images you pointed out to me, but I don't know to pick a copyright rationale. Can you advise? RedSquirrel (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The best one to go for is "life of the author plus 70 years" which is the most likely case. You can select it as a pull-down in the Wikimedia Commons upload form. See this for an explanation. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm; sadly I don't believe this rationale - the photo was taken in 1926, so unless the photographer was hit by a tram immediately after taking it (not likely on Castle Street) then he hasn't been dead for 70 years. Hey ho. RedSquirrel (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

College Green

I note that 'College Green' currently covers Dublin's College Green, with an 'other uses' tag leading to a disambiguation page for the College Greens in London and Bristol. Looking at the page view stats I see that the Dublin and Bristol pages actually get similar numbers of hits, with the rather stubby London one getting rather less. Am I right in thinking that in such circumstances, the College Green page should be a disambiguation? If so, do you have any hints and tips as to how to achieve this, preferably without ruffling too many feathers? I put a note on the discussion page about a month ago, tna. RedSquirrel (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but WP:BOLD is a good place to start i.e. just do it! You'd be less likely to wind people up if you immediately started fixing all the links to the Dublin page after you did the rename. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

A very manly man, just like you!

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)