Jump to content

User talk:Halsteadk/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Advertising

I was not using Wikipedia to advertise. I have nothing to do with either fsBreak nor WeekInAviation. I just thought people would like to know some things about FS, and how there is a large community of people out there. I had not advertising intent. I have been on Wikipedia a long time and know the rules. No advertising was intented.comment added by Tofutwitch11 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there are no other services like these, they are the only two. There are other aviation podcasts, but there are the only ones that are 100% geared toward FS. Right, MS has had a long history, but PodCasts werent popular untill iTunes started to get going, and techonology got rolling. So, I dont know what to say. No advertising intented. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Admittedly this would be a good idea however, as NO references are made in MOST cases I thought best to add the overall 'noref' tag. An episode can be referenced and once this is done it may be an idea to go ahead and tailor the tag to the specific requirements of the article. RaseaC (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Purbo T bot change to Keith

Hi, your bot removed a link to it:Keith, however this page exists. I've manually put the link back in, perhaps something to look into in case there is a bug! Thanks, Halsteadk (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint and for your quick response. I knew of the removal since the bot is running manually controlled. It was indeed a mistake that came from an ambiguation/non-ambiguation page issue. I did not manually correct the mistake knowing that the bot was going to that automatically anyways with this edit which I knew was going to come pretty soon. I was interrupted, had to leave, and finally it took a night before I had a chance to return and had that done. So it is good, that you were quicker. Thank you, again. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Emma368

I wanted to await the (real) result of the sockpuppetry inquiry. If it's validated, the Emma account will be blocked indefinitely anyway. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, happy with that. That's why you're an admin not me! :) Halsteadk (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
On a similar note, I had a lok at the diff you provided on User:Nokezie. At the moment, I'm not sure that this is one of Emma's socks because he/she is using someone Emma368 and Davesmith have never mentioned before. Looneyman (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear

Are you willing to reach a negotiated settlement re: the Top Gear issues, or do we carry on with the fun and games? Please see the Top Gear discussion page for more details. SabineSchmitz (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Halsteadk, you have a vested interest in this matter having wrongly used your powers and influence before. You know that both Top Gear Dog and Top Gear Stuntman were both introduced as presenters, and as such deserve that recognition. Davesmith35 (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no "powers" or "influence" and you have no right to edit Wikipedia, nor are you welcome here after you used up many last chances 18 months ago. A large number of editors agreed that your claims were wrong - only you and your sockpuppets had your viewpoint. Halsteadk (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an incorrect assumption. A negotiated settlement is needed on this point and I have reopened the debate on the Top Gear discussion page. Davesmith35 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it from the above that you're not denying that you are User:Davesmith33. Halsteadk (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture,

but I don't need to be told what constitutes verifiability. The most cursory of glances at my user page and the extent of my contributions should've made that clear. Save it for the newcomers. Warren -talk- 19:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so why did you use a blog as a reference then? And why did you reference the blog, not the source the blog referenced? There's no need to be un-civil. Halsteadk (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest village article

To be honest, I just saw the list of potential claimants of largest town without a railway station on the article for Corby and thought that it was worth transferring. It was a reasonable request that you made, so I have had a look:

Is that all right?

Regards. Ed 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me Ed. Thanks. Halsteadk (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Avsim.com

Hi mate. I finally got around to finishing this off, was waiting for assistance with scanning a photo to upload for the conference. If you have anything to help expand, or any concerns - please let me know. Cheers! Icemotoboy (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Nice one! Halsteadk (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

template:Infobox font bug

Hi,

Got a test case for the bug mentioned here? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(update) if the bug in question was the issue with Segoe#Segoe UI, I've now fixed this. The infobox just needs the name of the file, not a full image tag. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Was just about to reply, then took another look and saw it had been fixed, then noticed you'd replied again! The issue was visible on the template page itself, but I first spotted it on Segoe. Thanks. Halsteadk (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Weirdly, I've just noticed it's only visible on the template page in edit mode! Halsteadk (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The examples should be fixed now too. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam

Hi Halsteadk

Thanks for your input on Egremont. The local freesheet seems to have little merit and to be well outside wiki policy. The gurning site was not working anyway.

I would have more respect for your opinions if I had not found blatant advertising on your own userpage. --Charles (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment, added quite a long time ago before I knew better! Halsteadk (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference Work

Dear Halsteadk, This is from Studiedgenius, I just want to let you know that i just corrected all the reference work stuff on Michael W. Smith, maybe you would like to check it. (Studiedgenius (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Autobahn

Hello Halsteadk, just wanted to inform you why I undid your edit - the existence of local speedlimits on a rather large part of the german autobahn network does not change the fact that there's no general limit. Other way round - unless posted otherwise, no limit. Regards, --KapHorn (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Dear Halsteadk, I have heard that it took you two and a half hours to drive one mile through Croydon. Why on Earth didn't you walk? It only takes 20 minutes. Jolly Ω Janner 20:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks wise guy. Presumably I would then have kept walking for the following 25 miles of my journey. Halsteadk (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise you had another 25 miles after that. My bad. Jolly Ω Janner 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Halsteadk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 9 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Wincey Willis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Neil Fitzwiliam - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Names of the Decade

Can you provide an opinion on the "Names of the Decade" rewrite debate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2000s_(decade)#Request_for_consensus_concerning:_Names_of_the_decade

Thanks. Artx (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FS2004-lakes.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FS2004-lakes.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mono 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about this; I added a rationale.  Chzz  ►  19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
Thanks Chzz! Must admit I wasn't going to bother as the resolution has been reduced almost to the point of making it useless, but thanks anyway. Regards, Halsteadk (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages not user talk

Hi [User:Halsteadk|Halsteadk], I have added a information page on Eskdale (written by a lady that grew up in Eskdale with lots of great information) which I thought would be useful for people and it has been rejected for being commercial. The other websites linked are also very useful but have different information on (eg different walks in the area etc) and these are also commercial websites (eskdale.info advertises everything from pubs to accommodation - not sure as to the difference). I'm new to wikki - should I complain about the eskdale.info link - I don't think so as this provides very useful information but the Sally's info page also does this. Can you explain this to me. Thanks, PS Just added there Wasdale page plus some information about the lake (the fact sailing and motor boats are not allowed etc) from that page before I read your message about Eskdale - just so you know I wasn't ignoring you. I'm just not sure as to rules because some websites eg the wasdale web page has a lot less information on than the Sally's page and the page it links to is straight away trying to sell you things (places to eat, shops etc) while the Sally's page is a information page [user:Philthefrenchman]Philthefrenchman (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk on the top gear talk page not my user page for a real wide ranging discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I can't be bothered any more. You clearly can't be bothered to address my valid point and I have better things to do with my time. And by Sunday evening it will all be academic anyway. Want another ref: try here [1]. Top Gear website authoritative enough for you on Top Gear matters? Same website, but doesn't say "blog" at the top of the page. Makes all the difference - not. Suggest you read WP:NEWSBLOG. Halsteadk (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware other editors have since stated the content of your source has been confirmed as untrue.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot believe this - are you actually familiar with the subject matter? I made it clear in my edit that the statement in the current edition of Top Gear Magazine (which I added a reference for by physically checking my own copy of the magazine - I even gave the specific page) had been contradicted by the subsequent statement on the Top Gear production team's blog (which no-one can yet say is untrue, and has been repeated twice on the Top Gear website). It is TRUE that the magazine wrote what they did, and it is TRUE that the production team have subsequently announced that it will not be what was said in the magazine - that is what we KNOW, and that is what I clearly WROTE. Halsteadk (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The source has been checked and is verifiable, reliable, and official. Therefore, Halsteadk's edits have been restored. Lucy-marie, just because a source happens to be a blog does not mean that it isn't credible (see WP:NEWSBLOG), and while most of the time such sources aren't, in this case, it is. In addition, you are not assuming good faith, and your edits may constitute an edit war. I strongly advise you to take another look at Wikipedia's guidelines before you attempt to do this again. Shannon! talk 23:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Shannon, you have helped to restore my fast withering faith that some Wikipedia editors do know what they are doing. The only reason we know that the statement in Top Gear Magazine is untrue (to which L-M referred to in her 2nd comment) is of course because of the entry in the Top Gear production team blog which she refuses to accept! Regards, Halsteadk (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Hi Halsteadk, thanks for your help at the FAC for The Judd School, good to hear you are a former pupil. Having thought about it, I probably should have asked you to be a co-nom, so apologies. Can you think of any ideas for sources that I might try to reduce the reliance on the Taylor book? Kind regards, Tom (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, good work on the article - I hope the hard work pays off but at the very least the article is vastly improved! You could try the Tonbridge Historical Society - http://www.tonbridgehistory.org.uk - even if the website doesn't have more info they may have other sources listed or members might be able to help (I'm not a member). I doubt there will be much better than Taylor's book, but I would focus on trying to find alternative sources for anything that might be disputable or may have been superseded since 1988 (eg the school's reputation, not that it has decreased) - or perhaps the article doesn't need all of such statements. Regards, Halsteadk (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I sent an email to the Tonbridge Historical Society but haven't heard anything back. I went to Tonbridge Library and looked for other sources and managed to find a few that gave a brief mention to the school, for example a book on the history of the English fur trade, and in total have added four additional sources to the article. I've also gone through and removed any statements like the university reputation sentence that can't be cited to a reliable, third party source. If you get a chance to take another look, I'd appreciate your comments and although you are a significant contributor to the article, if you could add a support/oppose as appropriate that would be great because I can't see many people coming forward to review it. Best wishes, Tom (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Off of

Is off of really an error in English?? (In other words, it isn't just labelled as an error by many people.) Check out:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgia guy (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 September 2010

Hmm, fair point - didn't realise it was so widely accepted in American English (it is generally discouraged and even frowned on in formal British English). As it's primarily an American subject I shall restrain myself! Halsteadk (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

remainded -> remainder

Please don't make this blind change again. The correct word in this case was "remained". Article: Winter of 2009–2010 in Europe Halsteadk (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. That's what you get for editing late at night I guess! Thanks for catching it. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits to Phil Pringle

Hi Halsteadk. Thanks for your recent reverts to unconstructive edits from a different IP for the article Phil Pringle. This has been going on for a long time, it's probably the same person doing it. How can we block them? Thanks. peterl (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've just submitted a page protection request - if granted it will stop anon users for editing it for a while, hopefully long enough for this person to go and find something better to do with his/her time. Halsteadk (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Great work, thanks. peterl (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kent flag.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kent flag.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson

The 3RR has been broken by IP 86.147.235.121 on Jeremy Clarkson‎, and I have made 3 reverts. Could you help me on how to proceed? Regards, HMman (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already noticed and put a 3RR warning on his page. That is often enough to end up with a ban with no further action, but one more reversion and I'll report him to make sure. Suggest you don't revert it again! Halsteadk (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I wasn't aware you had already warned him. Thank you. Regards, HMman (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me butting in. Annoying, isn't it? But take care - well respected editors get blocked for less it seems: [2], especially when it's not obvious vandalism. I have no strong feelings in this matter either way. But I guess futher "encouragement" to engage in dialogue at the Talk Page is required? I see that this ip, located in Surrey, has made quite a few similar Mary Whitehouse-type edits. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh well. Seems the "encouragement" didn't work. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The specific change he's trying to make isn't vandalism, but the 3RR rule takes precedence. (Indeed if any one of us reverted him 3 times we could be liable for a 3RR block.) Halsteadk (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought. But User:L1A1 FAL who stepped in and User:JohnCD, who has blocked, seem to think otherwise. It's sometimes a grey area isn't it. We'll see what happens in 31 hours.. Sorry to intrude. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ford Escort XR3 image

The image of the Mk 3 XR3 you added appears to show a non-standard Escort XR3. Given that the purpose of the images is to show differences between the models, showing a non-standard one defeats the purpose and I have removed the photo. Halsteadk (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You have not bothered to spell out what aspects of the car your regard as non-standard, and I am unfortunately not knowledgable enough to have worked it out for myself. If your judgement is correct then I agree that it supports your action. In any case, this entire subject is one that can quickly become hedged about with subjective judgements, and I have no strong opinion to offer on what you say (write) you have done.
Nevertheless, if you have the time to provide information on what aspects of the car you regard as non-standard, (1) it would be a conventional courtesy and (2) I might learn something which should (3) make both of us happy.
Happy day. And Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair comment. Comparing with stock images of the car (and memory), it seems that the clear indicators, wheels and (probably) the full-width front spoiler are all non-standard for the XR3. No Mk3 had clear indicators, but the other items are main differentiating features of the XR3 from lesser models. I realise subjectivity and original research is an issue here, especially when it comes down to memory rather than being "blessed" with a geeky knowledge of Escorts (I guess neither of us has that), but do a Google images search for "Escort XR3" and you won't find a car sharing the same features as the one in your picture. Halsteadk (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for education

Please refer to Talk:Labradoodle. In February an IP user made an edit request using highly inflammatory and emotional language, and your reply ("seems a bit daft") appeared to encourage that style of language. I'm wondering why, as a highly experienced editor, you made no comment on that user's apparent approach to Wikipedia. Guyovski (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

rvt of warning on 99.185.56.156

You said: "(Reverted to revision 500480389 by Halsteadk: rv - to be fair, the edit in question was before the edits resulting in the level 3 warning. " No problem. Thanks for doing that. Meters (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Given his subsequent rant above, I'm kind of wishing I hadn't bothered!! Halsteadk (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You were right to point it out to me, but I know what you mean. He recently made a batch of questionable edits to American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile. He asked what the problem was, so I pointed out what he would have to do to keep them, but he hasn't bothered. Now I'm expecting something like the above when I do go back and revert. Meters (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
On further thought, this may actually be more than one person on the same IP. It's a bit hard to put the church edits and the Naked Mile nude co-ed CD seller together. Meters (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

C3 Church Global

Because the page has never been protected before and the IP was making multiple edits a day, I put up a 24h protection to send a signal to the IP editor (many give up after realising they can't edit). But you were right; the IP came back straight away. Deryck C. 08:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop

I saw your post on ANI and replied there. Please stop re-adding that IP to WP:AIV for oh so many reasons - start at the ones I noted on ANI first. Most importantly, however, AIV is to block immediate cases of vandalism: some of your edits you're using as "evidence" are almost a week old now, and cannot be actionned through AIV. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You will note that I didn't log the initial AIV request - I was reporting what appeared to be a problem with the bot. I'm pretty sure the bot isn't capable of making a decision about what is or isn't vandalism on its own, and there was no sign of any human intervention - indeed the bot itself said that the anon had been blocked. If you're satisfied the bot is working properly, fine. Halsteadk (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
That may be the case, but looking at the specific incident, there's no urgency. Waiting for the bot owner would have worked better. If there are others it's honestly missing, then it may be more urgent and thus need reporting at ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me backtrack and apologize as it does seem that this has happened more than once so far today alone. When your report at ANI only mentioned 1 issue, it did not seem like an issue - but if you had shown multiple similar issues, I certainly would have responded differently. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Halsteadk. You have new messages at talk:Jessops.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--176.24.82.37 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Klaus

Hello Halsteadk. Thank you for reverting this edit. It was not only unsourced, but also incorrect, as Klaus signed the Lisbon treaty in 2009. Zeman signed only an addendum to the treaty, which Klaus refused to sign. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Halsteadk/Archive_4&oldid=1225148159"