User talk:Adambro

Welcome to my talk page

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• Leave me a message

Ben Wsift

Ben Swift... well it's on both the British Cycling pages(http://new.britishcycling.org.uk/sport/article/roa20100102--Sky-Pro-Team-Launch-0) and on cyclingnews.com

It was notable also that Ben was absent from the published Katusha roster released a few days ago.

TL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylyons (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu

I am actively rebelling against Rodhullandemu. He is a distructive and aggressive editor who does not give people a chance to debate things. He blocks anyone he doesn't like. He enforces his opinion. This is meant to be a community encyclopaedia. If you look at his talk page you'll see many people, some established editors, who cannot understand his actions.

People like his are not good for this site. I am not a malicious person. I am expressing my right to protest fascist attitudes on a free-speech website. If you look into his history he even got in trouble over deleting anti-right wing text for his own gain.

Thanks

90.212.154.3 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot on usage

Is it going to do that on all remaining stations? Simply south (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That is the plan, the eventual aim is to be able to update the statistics upon release of the new data, working through Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics is serving as a way of developing and testing the bot and also identifying other issues like NR stations that lack the relevant code. Adambro (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are quite a few stations that are not even in the category for example those with {{Infobox London station}} (and others that shouldn't be either). Simply south (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually run the bot for all stations? There are still 366 stations in Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the work wasn't completed due to real life work getting in the way. If I recall correctly, I need to do a little work to fine tune the bot and so that will be left till I have a little more free time. Adambro (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Images of the Geograph British Isles project requiring attention

And I think Category:Images of the Geograph British Isles project will be empty too by the end of this weekend. multichill (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image deletes

When you deleted File:York station zero post.jpg and File:British manual pedestrian level crossing warning sign.jpg, did you miss the {{nocommons}} templates here and here? Perhaps you'd like to undelete these files. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed, I'd rather hoped that perhaps your position had moderated since when you added the tags back in 2008 and wouldn't insist on keeping your images here with no apparent benefit. Looking at your activity on Commons, I struggle to understand why you've formed such a strong opinion against the project. Perhaps now is the time to give Commons another chance? I would be happy to assist you with any problems that might arise there for you. I won't however, start restoring content that I've legitimately deleted here under CSD I8 simply because for whatever reason you dislike Commons since that would serve no benefit. If you want the images to be restored then I'm sure you're aware of the appropriate procedures, but you should consider whether it is in the interests of the project to do so. Adambro (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion might have started to change, were it not for the fact that last week a Commons editor, stumbling across my opinions for the first time, retaliated by pointing a bot at my images in an effort to have them deleted from Wikipedia. So Commons has not changed. However, the actual point here is that the images on Commons are not correctly attributed in the method I have specified. I have no control over Commons breaking the CC licence, but I do have influence over Wikipedia, hence the {{nocommons}} tags. I ask you again to undo your out of process deletions. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you can realise that the actions of a few Commons users cannot be considered to accurately represent the entire project. As I've said, your activity on Common seems very limited so perhaps you have been too quick to judge the project from the few interactions you've had regarding it. I would be interested to hear what led you to form your position, it isn't obvious from your activity there nor anything else I've read here. Wikipedia, like all the other WMF project, has its fair share of problems also. If you could explain what the problems with Commons are then we might be able to resolve them.

You've suggested that "the images on Commons are not correctly attributed". If you could identify exactly what the problems are with those two images I deleted then I would be happy to try to resolve them.

As I've said, I'm not prepared to restore these images, if you wish for them to be restored then you can can raise it at deletion review or similar. My "out of process deletions" were in fact completely in line with Wikipedia policies as far as I can tell. Adambro (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly given in-depth explanations, here's one for instance. Since you won't reverse yourself from this move, reluctantly, I will reverse you myself. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your admin rights don't exist to reverse the decisions of other administrators. If you want content to be restored in instances like this then you should go through the proper processes. You've yet to explain why my deletions were "out of process" as you've said in restoring these images. I would appreciate if you could clarify. As far as I can tell the deletions are perfectly valid in accordance with CSD I8, restoring them seems more "out of process" than my deletion. You've also not explained in what way the two images I deleted as being on Commons are not correctly attributed there. I can't simply be expected to guess what this problem is. Please explain what the problem is so that, regardless of whether the images continue to exist here, they are properly attributed on Commons. Adambro (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have explained. The images are tagged {{nocommons}}. It is common courtesy and expected that these tags will be honoured. Otherwise, why do they exist? If you don't agree with the existence of the tag, then it is your responsibility to gauge consensus for having the tags deleted. Your tools do not give you the right to decide on consensus without first discovering what it is; they do not give you the right to delete whatever you want just because there's a different template - often placed by a bot - on the same page. If you see a bot or automatic tag on a page plus a human-added tag saying something different, it is expected of an admin to investigate rather than delete. That's where you were out of process too. Additionally, you have been told that the Commons images are not correctly attributed (ie, they are in breach of the CC licence). I don't edit at Commons and you can't force me to. But it's not beyond the whit of man to discover the attribution requirements of the images from their original upload on Flickr. Hundreds of bloggers manage to use the images and get it right, so I'd expect a Wikipedia admin to manage. However, since I'm in danger of losing my cool due to the levels of disappointment I have in your conduct, I think we should stop this discussion now, with the status quo ante restored. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My obligation is to follow policies. There is no policy which says I must consider protests from users who for whatever reason dislike Commons, above the policy of deleting images which exist there. Again, I'd ask that you spell out exactly what the problem with the attribution on Commons actually is. You seem to be making the suggestion that you comments on Flickr make the attribution invalid but I'd completely dismiss such a suggestion. You uploaded the images to Wikipedia and agreed to release them under the CC licence. You can't later decide to add additional conditions or expect conditions not set out at the time of upload on the image page to be enforceable. If you wish for nocommons to be respected then you can propose it is made a policy, until then all you can expect anyone to do is to note your objection and consider the appropriate action with reference to our policies. The proper process if you wished for images like these, which were deleted on the understanding that to do so complied with Wikipedia policies, to be restored would be to start a deletion review. I'm assuming the appropriate course of action for me would be to list these images at Wikipedia:Files for deletion but it would seem a bit odd to do so considering it states that speedy deletion candidates shouldn't be listed there. I supposed I could consider using {{Db-f8}} so another admin could consider whether it qualifies for deletion under CSD I8. Adambro (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I'm not that concerned about these images that I'm going to spend time arguing for their deletion at FFD. However, my points stand since sooner or later someone else is going to come along and delete them again in line with policy so this issue hasn't gone away just because I currently have better things to do with my time. Adambro (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever policy says, and I don't think it says anything which is wholly on point here, extensive precedent says we don't delete things tagged with {{KeepLocal}} or {{NoCommons}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Filter 291

Hi Adambro. I made some changes to your filter 291; if you wouldn't mind, please take a look at it and verify it's still correct. I made these changes because we're really close to the condition limit on the filter, and every chance to save a condition keeps us away from that limit. I left some notes on why I made the changes, so as to avoid confusion. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your changes are appreciated. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to the abuse filter, though I think I understand it enough to not create anything too ridiculous, so any help is welcome. Adambro (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My Images in Wikimedia Commons

Hi Adambro, please could you explain to me what you are doing to my images that are stored in Wikimedia Commons and why are you changing them without asking me before hand?

Kind regards --Peter Skuce (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. If you want to discuss something I'm doing on Commons you'd be better leaving me a message on my talk page there since then, if I was editing there at the time, I'd get the new message indication and be able to review your comments before making further changes, potentially which you had concerns about which I needed to address.

I make many edits to train related images on Commons, most recently involving images of First Great Western trains which I assume includes some of your images. What I've been doing is separating images of FGW trains by type to improve the way the images are categorised. Both the FGW and relevant class categories have become quite large and so it makes sense to create subcategories to organise related content in smaller groups to make it easier to find images. If this isn't what you were referring to, or if you have some specific concerns about these changes then please clarify what you are meaning. Regards. Adambro (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tomlinson

Hi Adam, please don't add citation templates to articles that have well-formed refs. See WP:CITE. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The ref was hardly what I'd call "well-formed". It was simply a long link which exceeded the width of the page. Adambro (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean that when an article has an established ref system, templates shouldn't be added to it. So if you see a badly formed one, it should be fixed according to the system already in place. It's not a biggie, I just mentioned it for future reference. You're right that a bare URL isn't acceptable. The article's refs are in a bit of a mess because so many people have edited it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have to admit I simply clicked edit on the relevant section and went ahead to reformat the ref to get rid of the bare URL so didn't really notice what was being used. I would have thought using the template would have been useful though since it would make it easier to maintain a consistent reference style but I suspect there have been reams written about the pros and cons and we can't actually agree. I'll bear this in mind in future since I've generally converted to use the templates oblivious of WP:CITE advising against doing so without consensus. Adambro (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GB railway stations opening/closeing bot

Hi Adambro,

I was just wondering what the currrent status on your planned bot to add opening/closeing categories for GB railway stations? Tompw (talk) (review) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently suspended that project due to other real life commitments I'm afraid. Adambro (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

British Rail Class 321 Vandalism

Dear Adambro, I have spotted user 84.13.49.166 has been vandalising the article by placing incorrect data regarding train relivery, placed a large image on the page when this image already existed as a thumbnail in the gallery near the foot of the page. This user has also removed some of my work from the page without any note or reason at all. Their information is incorrect and it has affected the article as they have also used sentances with poor English and grammer. I have a copy of the above on the British Rail Class 321 talk page. --Peter Skuce (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for the heads up. Adambro (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Inline refs WERE included

Thanks for your comments re my editing of Thomas F. Stroock. I did in fact include an inline reference.

"Serious doubt is cast on Ambasador Stroock's commitment to human rights by the book The Blindfold's Eyes, My Journey From Tortured to Truth; Orbis Books, NY 2002 by Sister Dianna Ortiz OSU. Later in the short piece, I quoted page references three times.

If this is not adequate or suitable, please let me know in detail.

thanks Opnz (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC) opnz

I don't recall actually commenting regarding this. Adambro (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rated R Tour

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rated R Tour. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rated R Tour. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

South West Trains Class 159

Hi there Adambro,

I would like to have your comments and opinons on the following:

I have today asked South West Trains the question of the brand name for the Class 159. My question was as follows: Have the Class 159 ever been known or been given the nickname ‘Wessex Turbo’ during their lives, and were they known as ‘South West Turbo’ or is it ‘South Western Turbo’? Posted by Peter Skuce 25/02/2010 Answer: The class 159 trains were introduced in 1992 and had the name Wessex Turbo. You can find this on the webpage: <http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/archive.aspx?p=2> So I do not know how or where do the branding 'South Western Turbo' came about if British Rail Network SouthEast branded the trains as 'Wessex Turbo'.

According to Enotayokel, the trains are known as 'South Western Turbo'.

Personally I am rather confused by it all, as I remember seeing the wording 'Wessex Turbo' on the bodysides of the Class 159 by the entry/exit passenger doors around 1997-98. Also I note that South West Trains management state that the trains are 'Wessex Turbo'.

Can you help?

Regards, --Peter Skuce (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to comment on this? --Peter Skuce (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look and comment on the talk page if I have anything to add. Adambro (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

SBC Communications

Can you help me, I just finished making a page for SBC Communication in a Userspace but I can't move it due to a SBC communication page "Exists" (Not that I could find, other than the redirect. It said "Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." Different name doesn't make sense, don't want to have this sitting around uselessly for a little while on the list figured I'd ask an administrator.

Basically Can you help me move the page? If you can Thanks if not, oh well thanks anyways.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've deleted the redirect and moved your page to SBC Communications. Please check whether there are any edits necessary now it is in the article namespace such as updating links. Also, I note the lead starts "SBC Communications was a former regional holding company that specialized in local ." I assume there is a missing word or two there. Regards. Adambro (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it, I must have done that in a rush when the free period ended and I had to get to class. I fixed it now. Many Thanks!--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 16:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MyFDB.com edits from this IP address.

Please don't blanket warn against this, there is information about the addition of myfdb.com links on this page please review thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.130.2 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing

This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey You

I do NOT appreciate you threating me telling that you will block me, it hurt me deeply. The motto was "Lets go to walmart" so I changed it to the unofficial motto, and nickname. If you have another problem with what I said, I will be contacting my senator directly and promptly addressing this matter.

Smartguyandgirl (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)smartguyandgirlSmartguyandgirl (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Favela was wrong

I believe that i was not wrong because i have studied this very hard lately and i know for a fact that favelas are igloos in iraq. Message me back.

    =)

My Talk Page Link

Whoops. I copied that template originally from your talk page, so apparently I forgot to change it. I didn't know so many people use that link. Thanks for changing it. Sorry for the inconvenience this has caused you. Goodvac (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Adambro (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of BrightHouse (retailer)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is BrightHouse (retailer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrightHouse (retailer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

British Rail Class 321 - Class 321/3 Relivery

Dear Adambro that was me sorry. Would it be evidence if I cite fotopic websites images? --Peter Skuce (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Class 395 names

Hi Adambro,

Agreed on citations. Unfortunately there is no record of these other than on the side of the units themselves!

When someone publishes them in full a citation will be forthcoming!

Ohrockyrocky (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this press release with the names but not the relevant unit numbers unfortunately. Adambro (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Usage/LowUsage

Hi - I was wondering whether your bot is capable of looking at previous usage statistics, and working out whether usage or lowusage would be better for borderline cases? See this edit for example - your bot has used usage here, but lowusage would have been consistent with the previous entries, and made it clearer whether the figures have gone up or down this year. Just a thought. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there are two options, format the new data according to the previous entries or bring the previous entries in line with the greater than 100,000, use "usage" standard. It is probably better to do the latter to provide both consistency within individual articles, and within articles more generally. That shouldn't be too much of a challenge to achieve. Adambro (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking to see, without success, what the cut-off between lowusage and usage should be. 100,000 seems reasonable. Are you willing/able to have your bot go through and change those which are the wrong side (for any year)? If not, I might be able to do it with AWB. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll update the bot to change those where it updates the usage stats going forward. For those that have already been done or won't be changed by the bot for whatever reason that'll involve either writing another quick script to make these changes or using AWB. I'm not immediately aware of how to do this in AWB myself though. Adambro (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also working on adding {{increase}}, {{decrease}}, or {{steady}} as appropriate to the current and earlier periods. Adambro (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, ignoring the London stations it looks like your bot has missed a station. Has this happened elsewhere? Simply south (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding London stations, they aren't being done at the moment because those use a different infobox which has different parameters. Crossflatts railway station was missed because the station code wasn't present. The bot will skip articles for a variety of reasons but it will output a list of such articles for me to investigate manually so that would have been spotted eventually. Adambro (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Fincham

Hi Adam. Just to note that the WP:PPOL states that "A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time", so I've unprotected it. I know it's a little irritating, but I think it may be best just to leave the talk page until this dies down. After all, one of these new users may have something useful to add. – Toon 17:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I wasn't aware of that but it doesn't surprise me. If the signal to noise ratio doesn't improve though it may be appropriate to reinstate the protection. Adambro (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Bloody Scott Mills. I came over to protect the article after hearing it to find that you were already there - nice reflexes. – Toon 17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I listen to Radio 1 enough to know that if a particular Wikipedia article gets anything beyond a trivial mention, vandalism is highly likely so will be there ready to protect it pretty promptly. Scott's comments today are probably to the more severe end of the spectrum. It seems fairly obvious from what I can see at the moment that deletion is appropriate due to the concerns highlighted. Adambro (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Cut that out.

Plenty of other humans on these projects do that. I won't hide it. And I'll leave if you keep trolling me. STOP IT, TROLL. EME44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

Image

Can image Image:Sugababes2010.jpg be moved to commons?--SveroH (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably better not doing at the moment. See the talk page where I've raised some issues which it would be helpful to try to address first. Adambro (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks :)--SveroH (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing War

Adambro,

Thanks for your message - I'm still suffering from troublemakers trying to divert interested parties to a 'hate' forum where when although I'm not a member, I'm often quoted from other forums and my full name and some personal details have been posted.

I have a full time job and aircraft flight following is a hobby.

Regards

G

Allocator101 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Adambro, Thank you for fixing it. I couldn't find a email address to email you about this. Please look over the linked page to Rod's site. It setup to make money with 18 referrer links to Airnav site. via this wiki page * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirNav_Systems_RadarBox

   * http://rodb.gofreeserve.com/RadarBox/RadBox1.htm
   * http://rodb.gofreeserve.com/RadarBox/RadBox2.htm

Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Adambro... Is that okay to do? Build a referrer page for the radarbox, and link it to the wiki radarbox page. ?

Allocator. Please stop trashing the RadarBox wiki page. now you have posted this on the wiki " Screenshot deleted by Wiki for 'copywrite' reasons :-( " No reason to post that on the Radarbox page. take it up with ESkog the wiki admin via another way.

Amelle Berrabah

Could you please find and 2010 or 2009 pic of Amelle please, she doesn't have a pic. :) x --Fightforthislove (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh?

[1] ? Prodego ^talk 14:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

opps. Sorry about that. I'm using a touch screen mobile device and hit rollback accidently. Adambro (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I could use a little help.

Okay, over on the Wikimedia Commons, I noticed there was a mass-deletion of UK Rail images. I was a moron, and pointed out some issues this presents for us and in everyone general.

Basically I'm pretty sure I just got told I got the job of transferring all of them to Wikipedia, Problem is I don't know how to do that, and this is not exactly the best moment for me to get this 'job'. Could you give me a hand, or suggest someone who could? The information is here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck under '33109 negotiates the backstreets of Weymouth'--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the main issue is confirming that those images were released under a free licence by the photographer. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that transferring them to Wikipedia would be a suitable solution to that problem. Whilst Wikipedia allows "fair use" for images not available under a free licence, the circumstances where fair use can be claimed are very limited and I doubt would include these images. I think the only way of rescuing these images would be to try to get clear statements submitted to OTRS from the photographers that they agree to release these images under an appropriate free licence. I'm afraid I can't help you more, but I'm busy with exam revision at the moment. Regards. Adambro (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Grand Union/Grand Northern/Grand Central

Just wanted to say thank you for tidying up the mess of the various Grand Northern/Grand Central articles - I've wanted to do it myself but found it to be a large undertaking! NRTurner (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

TMi cbbc page

I noticed you protected the TMi cbbc page! Thanks.

I was also getting fed up with the vandalism that others were making. I was deleting the vandalism and i should have included an edit summary.

Someone was being "creative" with the TMi guest list and kept adding guests that have never appeared on the programme. I.E: Michael Jackson: he had never appeared on this programme and some idiot thought he had filled in for the female host in 2008 when in fact it was singer Alesha Dixon who had filled in for her!

I notice that the page has now reverted to an earlier version of it.

Thanks for protecting the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.232.4 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the action related to account Drugring (talk · contribs). This account is likely a sock of banned User:DavidYork71, per the checkuser confirmed findings from 9 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Excessive editing

Hi Adambro, This other User talk:Cosmic Latte has been editing the Michael jackson page alot. It seems as though other editors have warned him already and he from his talk page has been charged with vandalism. Just bringing it to your attention. Their is a talk page to discuss editing before enacting drastic changes to articles from the best of my knowledge.

Thank you hubbletelescope2 Hubbletelescope2 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Kaya Scodelario

I've undone your edit concerning that band without a Wikipedia entry, don't add it again without a source. The Blue Guillemot (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much, I was a little confused as to how to start off here, in terms of editing and could not find any information, thanks for the links. What would you say is the best way to contribute around here? The slack (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cancellara

I reverted your additions as was presented just from Cancellara's point of view. I think we could keep as it is (perhaps correct my English, I am not mothertongue), adding Cancellara denials. Ciao and let me know. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I note you've now reverted yourself but I was very concerned about how it was written. It shouldn't be written from Cancellara's point of view, nor the point of view of the people who accuse him of cheating, but rather a neutral point of view. It is also preferable to us English sources where available since many editors may not understand other languages and so may find it difficult to check what has been said. As an example of the problems though, before my changes the article said "The videos pointed out by Cassani show Cancellara pushing a button". That isn't the case. The videos may suggest he is pushing a button but we can't state that he is because we don't know, he might have just been changing gear or whatever. I think the way it was written gave too much weight to the accusations. As another example, I'm not convinced that it was true to say that Cassani said any bike changes were to get fresh batteries. I think there might have been some confusion between what Cassani said and what the various YouTube videos put together by others which included clips of Cassani talking about this have said. Adambro (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

mavi marmara

My friend, you can edit everything on wikipedia. But you can not edit peoples hearts. International society see clearly how Israel commandos attacked and murdered civilians on the ship in internationel waters. You can make up the page as much as you can, no problem. If you want you can write "activists attacked poor israeli commnados by plastic chairs and sticks, israeli commandos responded to protect themselves". Nobody will believe these make ups, even you do not believe what you write. So why dont you give up this game and clearly write what had done on the ship. People are using wikipedia to learn, not to read israeli propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tufankaya (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 June 2010

My motivation behind my edits to this article have been to avoid it getting into too much of the detail since we have the main article, Gaza flotilla raid, which already deals with the subject in detail. By linking to that, we avoid duplicating our efforts and it keeps any disputes about what should be written in one place. This article is about the ship. The incident the ship was involved in is described in that main article. The current text provides a brief but adequate neutral summary of the incident and directs readers to the main article for more information. It is terribly ironic that I'm being accused of writing Israeli propaganda whilst at the same time there are other users who have effectively accused me of anti-semitism. I suppose that is what you get when you try to be neutral, you find yourself in the middle with both sides unhappy about you. Adambro (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

mavi marmara

Of course this article is about the ship, not about gaza flotilla raid but the reason why there is an article called Mavi Marmara is because 9 activist is killed by israeli commandos at this ship. Otherwise as I know wikipedia does not consist articles of all ships on the world. So there should be more information about the deaths rather than the former operator of the ship, etc. since all the world is talking about this ship because of these deaths. Secondly your edits (in the violent clashes that followed) give a message to the readers such as two armed group clashed. But the truth is (not my personal opinion) the passangers (which consist of activists from 32 different countries including EU parliements) were unarmed (I mean guns, not plastic chairs or sticks) and israeli commandos entered the ship from helicopters and after these "violent clashes" 9 passanger is killed by israeli soldiers. I do not know you personally so I can not blame you to make israeli propoganda, but do you really believe that violent clashes can occur between proffessional commandos and acvitists? If any israeli commando were killed I may agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tufankaya (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)