User talk:Mholland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page, with an appropriate and/or witty header.
If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left you a message on your talk page, I will look for changes there, but you are welcome to reply here if you wish.

Thank you

Archives /Archive 1 (2005 – 2006)

[edit] Thanks

Mholland, Thank you for fixing the photos in the Black Panther Party. PEACETalkAbout 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Universities in the United Kingdom

I replaced the regional templates because I think that the national template is much more useful as a navbox than the regional ones because it links all the UK universities rather than just the ones in a region. I think that many people who are looking at university pages will want to look at others in different regions, which is much easier to do with the UK template. The grouping in the template has remained regionalised so that by-region usage can be maintained. I have also formatted similar templates, like the research groupings, in the same style as numerous templates can appear on the one page, and each one had a different look and size etc making them look untidy (more and more navboxes across the site are using the same format). They also now collapse when there are more than 3 on the page to make the page look less cluttered. mattbr³⁰ 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Dave6 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! — mholland 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism edits

hmm, thank you. it looks like i was wrong! a couple of his other edits seemed somewhat nonsensical, so i guess i made the assumption of vandalism too quickly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.129.54 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

No problem. The trouble with the article is that it's difficult to verify the system in place in every country. — mholland 04:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Warren

Thanks for adding the additional sources to the Raymond Warren article. I have today added a third. Olebin 10:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Warren (2)

Hi, I have re-nominated the article for speedy deletion because I too believe that it meets the WP:BIO policy, even though its properly cited etc it still seems to be a biography of a person who seems to have none, or very little relevance to Wikipedia. Thanks for your co-operation and if you would like to speak about this matter anymore the please feel free to contact me on my Talk Page. I've voiced my opinion on the AFD (which is to delete it). Thanks for your help and happy editing.

Cheers.... Tellyaddict 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Warren (3)

Hi, apologies for my errors in dealing with this matter, but as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia I am still learning the ropes. I have read the discussion on the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page and there seems to be a general consensus of opinion forming that the subject is sufficiently notable. However of course I will abide by the eventual ruling, whatever that may be. Olebin 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect the article will be kept. There is quite a large corps of editors who like to assess newly created articles, and there's a lot of work out there for them, much of it unencyclopedic. Sometimes mistakes are made. You're entitled to express your own opinion on the AfD, by the way. Your view is as good as any other editor's. Happy editing. — mholland 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aline Kilmer

Thanks for pointing that out, must have overlooked it. —ExplorerCDT 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh um...ok?

That's fine, no big deal. :)

Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent edit

Sorry for my recent Edit to the wiki sandbox.

You do know it was only for a bit of fun, but sorry anyway for any misleadment.

--Mickyfitz13 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. Just be aware that if you remove or suppress the page furniture of the Sandbox, it makes it difficult for the page to fulfil its function. — mholland 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the tip.--Mickyfitz13 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor review

Thanks for taking the time to suggest some improvements on my editor review! All I can say is that the reason I gave Jackhaswell three warnings was because he vandalised my user page on three occasions but I can understand your point of view. Thanks and happy editing!! Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your measured response. I look forward to your RfA, should the time be right. — mholland 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Met

I work for the University and the abbreviation is London Met. NEVER LMU, which refers to Leeds Metropolitan University. I have therefore reverted your edit. 163.167.129.124 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are correct.

I mean, you said 'NEVER', in capitals.

Silly me for thinking otherwise.

I'm beating myself and in a hair shirt.

Can you tell?

etc. Please refer to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I understand that as an employee of the university, you are better aware of the official abbreviation, but Google suggests that the terms are used interchangeably. Please reconsider your edit in this light. If 'London Met' does have any official status, you are welcome to note that in the article. Please note also that while I will not dispute your edit by revert-warring, I may raise the issue with other editors. Thanks. — mholland 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough

I can sorta see where you want to go with the disambig page, but the encyclopedic source you claimed was unreachable (as I'm not a member of the page and whatnot), so I guess, if you want, you can change it, and we can see what people think of it. <3 bunny 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NLD

Defective PD or other "free" licenses are usually redirect to NLD/NSD while being debated, EG {{PD-NJGov}}. 68.39.174.238 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Crap, NLD used or (Or does on Commons) directed to {{No license}}. 68.39.174.238 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it might be something like that. I've never edited on the commons, so I didn't twig. — mholland 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] politics of Iraq

thanks. you did what I was trying to do--Vindheim 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. We both arrived there at the same time, I think, and I noticed one diff more. Cheers. — mholland 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian universities

I put it on CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_20#Category:Canadian_universities. GreenJoe 05:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Good work. — mholland 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Merely wanting your opinion, since I agree with you that 1 nobody will add a comment anymore, 2 new perspective (neutral?) is badly needed. Would it be acceptable to post on Village pump and ask for outside comments? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So long as you're not soliciting for vote-stacking, I think you could raise it anywhere. Given that there's been little response from WP Pseudoscience, I don't know where else you might try. AfDs are occasionally relisted if there's insufficient discussion, so I trust that there will be some sort of clear outcome. I'm not going to involve myself one way or the other though – I'd rather wait and see if others do comment. — mholland 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to inform you. Was bold and posted a neutral request at village pump. Of course I understand and respect your wish to remove yourself from that discussion. Thanks. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bicol University

Hi Mholland, the article mentioned above was reverted again. I reported this article in the "WikiProject Universities" before you enhanced it but it was changed again. I don't know how to fix it nor I have the knowledge if I have the right to revert it and probably warn User:Liktrillanes. Hope you could take a look at this article. Again, thanks! Fddfred 06:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply - I spent a day offline, doing fun things! I notice you've gone ahead and reverted, which is always an editor's prerogative. I've left a note on Liktrillanes' talk page, but I don't think a warning is in order - I assume he's acting in good faith, but his text does need improving. He doesn't seem very talkative as a user, or expressive with edit summaries, but it might just be because nobody's said hello :)

If he reverts again, without discussion, then it might be appropriate to post a warning. Thanks for letting me know. — mholland 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to disturb you again. I'm a newbie here and I like to learn from you. Liktrillanes did it again and he left a message on my talk page which is quite... i don't know. I think i'm wasting too much time editing Wikipedia but the fact is, I'm learning a lot here, not to mention getting a lot of information from Wikipedia and... I like it. So, what should we do with the Bicol University article? Please go ahead and I will just watch and learn. Again, thanks a lot! Fddfred 04:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're within your rights to remove his message on your talk page as a personal attack. At least he's talking to you. If Bicol is on your watchlist, then calmly revert any further restorations of unsatisfactory text and warn the user with one of the template messages designed for that purpose. You could read up on WP:DR and follow guidance, but the bottom line is that if another user is uncommunicative and unresponsive to warnings, he'll eventually be blocked for vandalism. You may wish to place {{uw-npa1}} on User talk:Liktrillanes in relation to his message on your talk page, if you feel it was an attack.

Improving articles is generally a one-way street, and since it's quite easy to undo destructive edits, there's no need to pay much attention to them. Happy editing! — mholland 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try practicing putting those warnings to his talk page. This is fun!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fddfred (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Revert advice please

You very kindly reviewed the Altrincham page recently after I'd done quite a bit of work to try and get it into shape. Since then I've had the response of the review by User:AnonEMouse regarding the accusation by User:Jhamez84 that I was operating as a sock puppet on that page - which has thankfully concluded that the accusation was completely without foundation - and the pages which were the ones you archived have now been consigned to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars!

However, the changes I'd made to the discussion page (which I assume you were happy with) - incuding your comments - which resulted in the better organisation of new discussion and stimulating new input have now been reverted by User:Jhamez84 and I've commented on this on my talk page. One might draw all sorts of conclusions as to why this happened given timing and the outcome of the sockpuppet case and his explanation about that on my talk page. The revisions to the discussion page were maybe not strict wikipedia policy - but they were generating activity on an article which had been going nowhere for a long time. I'm concerned that I'm now being stalked/vandalised(?) by this editor who has already accused me of being a sockpuppet and who appears to be more concerned with what he perceives to be the rules than the actual purpose of wikipedia and the degree of latitude which I believe it allows. The reformatting is being discussed in the geography pages from the perspective of what needs to happen to encourage more people to contribute in the right sort of way. I don't believe there was anything about the revised format which would have broken the rules of wikipedia since the discussion could still be historical within the different sections. Could you please review and advise as I found you to provide very helpful advice before as to the organisation of this discussion page. I'm not into conducting 'revert wars' and have not reverted what he's done but wonder whether I should. Moreover, if this sort of thing carries on then I shall just stop contributing to pages in that area. Anyway - you seem much more well versed in wiki ways than me - what do you think is the best way forward?

(PS Does being a Gnome when you were in the Brownies count for gnomery purposes? And that's as close to being witty as per your request as I can manage right now!) Cosmopolitancats 10:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hullo. User:Jhamez84 does have some strong opinions regarding the geography of Greater Manchester, and from looking at his talk page, it would seem that he participates quite a lot in related arguments. I can see from your point of view that having an editor accuse you of being a sock just after a content dispute might seem like a grudge.

I must assume that he acted in good faith though, and was just a bit hot-headed in the middle of a dispute. There is, in fact, a loose grouping of users who, for POV-pushing reasons, like to go around promoting the Historic counties of England and removing material which suggests that entities like Greater Manchester even exist! Jhamez84 may have mistaken you for one of these. For what it's worth, I find that your contributions to Altrincham were wholly constructive.

Talk page arrangement

Jhamez84's last edit to Altrincham itself was over a month ago, so I think that what content dispute there was has now blown over. With regards the talk page, I have restored recent debates from the history (in chronological order), and I'll leave a note for Jhamez84 to that effect. I can see where he's coming from. The guideline WP:TALK describes the standard method of talk page organisation, which is universally accepted (if only by default). I was perfectly happy with your experimentation, though I can see how it might have initially confused other users, I think that your method was just as easy to deal with as the current one. One thing your arrangement would impede, though, is talkpage archiving - in a chronological format, it's easy to slice off the oldest discussions and archive them.

I respectfully suggest that you run with the status quo here, and create new discussions at the bottom of the page. Have you considered other ways of organising improvement efforts? You can arrange the To-do list at the top of the talk page by section, or create an article FAQ, to stop discussion going round in circles.

If you really want to return to your system, you'll have to come to an agreement with Jhamez84. In your favour, WP:TALK is only a guideline and your arrangement was only very subtly different in practice from the usual.

Personal dispute with Jhamez84

Wikistalking is a serious accusation to level. If I'm honest, I don't think that User:Jhamez84 has come anywhere near to stalking you. If you find a user following-up your edits to articles unrelated to Greater Manchester, that would be inappropriate. By contrast, summarily refactoring a talk page and making an accusation of sockpuppetry, as part of a related dispute, isn't stalking, it's just lashing out. Perhaps.

As with all disputes, the first step is to talk about it, and I'm glad to see you've done that on the ~~other user's~~[ your ] talk page. I sort of think that a false accusation of sockpuppetry merits an apology from Jhamez84, but you've no right to demand one, and if he's going to be grumpy about it you can only forget about it and move on. Maybe you could do a bit of editing in areas where Jhamez84 isn't active? But please don't give up on editing in these areas altogether.

Keep up the good work. Best wishes — mholland 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and the archiving of pages. Acknowledgement noted and appreciated. I note the wiki designated officially lame debate continues - and in two places now! I'm going to be using my time to better effect on other pages. Thanks again. Cosmopolitancats 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altrincham

Yes, my apologies. I did mean to attempt to reinstate some of the discussions, but it slipped my mind. I noticed most were by Cosmo - a user who caused mayhem on the Greater Manchester article - so thought most would not be missed.

However, thanks for the contact. The article does need a swift archive. Jhamez84 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WOAH! My mistake!!! I see he's back and above! I'm keeping out of this one!!!!! Jhamez84 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, mayhem is one way of putting it. But from where I'm sitting, Cosmopolitancats made seventeen edits to Greater Manchester in a single session on Feb 14, and was summarily reverted (quite rightly, in that case) by an anon. No further edits before or since. Bold? Yes. Mistaken? Probably. Mayhem? Probably not. I'm not taking sides here, but if Cosmopolitancats is a POV-pushing vandal, he/she's the least virulent one I've ever encountered. Thanks for your response, though. — mholland 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a minute please!... I used "Mayhem" jockularly, and have never accused this user of being a POV vandal (can you find a diff? Certainly not. So no need to suggest this thank you). With regards to Greater Manchester, bold - too much (nothing was inline with WP:MOS or any other style guide). Mistaken - given there are assertions on being local government specialists to circumvent WP:CITE, wholly. But I was not involved!!!! Several other users were, I merely messaged him to let him know where he went wrong.

That said, I sent a message to him quite politely to help him out, (see for yourself, its nothing nasty).

As for apologies, I have done. Again, please read his talk page as this appears to have been overlooked. The sock-puppet investigation mentioned above (i.e. suspicision - not an accusation) was brought against any and all new editors who sprung up out of nowhere on the Altrincham. Every editor bar Cosmo was a sleeper account and thus the investigation was justified in my opinion.

As I've said, anything else he does which is perhaps not appropriate - I'm staying well clear. But looking at the longwinded letters being posted by this user to circumvent policy as soon as anyone questions his perogative, I think there is a dispute waiting to happen - Talk page aside I've never even reverted one of his edits and I've had this!!!! Good luck. Jhamez84 00:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You seem to have acted entirely reasonably, as does Cosmopolitancats. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like there's nothing left to dispute. I don't find that Cosmopolitancats has been particularly victimised, so I'm content to go forth and spead the wikilove. Sorry if it seemed as though I was accusing you of anything. Cheers. — mholland 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am displeased with your efforts on the Altrincham article. Google is not a reliable sampling source at all - has it occurred to you that including Cheshire when searching for Altrincham will include billions of Census returns, multiplied for every ten years, for every site that offers them??? Is this some kind of provocation because another user has a vendetta against me for excersising policy? I thought edit stalking was a serious offence. Your sources do not qualify as reliable and is thus in breach of WP:A. Jhamez84 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Is this some kind of provocation because another user has a vendetta against me for excersising policy?"

No, this is not a provocation, and I don't believe that anyone has a vendetta against you. In fact, the other user (Cosmopolitancats) has claimed the reverse, with just as little provocation.

"Google is not a reliable sampling source"

I agree. I included the note on Talk:Altrincham merely as a very rough selection of evidence that people are still giving out their addresses as 'Altrincham, Cheshire'. You'll notice that I made no mention of Google in the sources I gave in support of the claim on the face of the article. Those sources were:

Now, perhaps you'd like to tell me which of those sources fails WP:RS? — mholland 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your filing cabinet

As I said, you shouldn't be claiming this as public domain. See the definition of a derivative work at [1]. Note that drawings based on photos, drawings based on drawings, etc., are counted as derivative works. As a derivative work of a GPL'd image, this should be GPL'd as well (and again, if the other image is a GPL violation, it should also be removed). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response on WP:AN#. Humble apologies if I'm mistaken. I still don't like the Crytal Clear image, though! — mholland 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'M SO MAD!

Thanks for editing my university of winchester pages and getting rid of the work i put in to write the content. I am a member of the university and there was no breach of copyright. there was no borrowing of images. some people make me so mad................ openmindedguy

I apologise if Wikipedia's strict observance of copyright law seems unfair. You may have made an effort to contribute, but both the text and the images you added were essentially copied and pasted from here, here and here. You may not think that it's a copyright violation, but it is, and in any case, text lifted verbatim from an institution's own website rarely meets Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Feel free to write about the developments, but do so in your own words, and cite the University's website as a source. Of the images you added, I would say that Image:Unicentre-pic1.jpeg would qualify as fair use next to a paragraph on the development, but the other two are quite large, and would, I think, fail Wikipedia's fair use policy. A fourth image you have uploaded, Image:Winchester-logo-left.png, I have already corrected the source/copyright status of. — mholland 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Re: Petronas University of Technology

Thank you for pointing out my mistakes. I have sent my request to move the pages. Golvin 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. I'm afraid I may disagree with you about this particular move, however. And another user does too. Similar use of all-caps has been contested in the past, and although I can see a case in favour, I'm not sure I find it compelling. — mholland 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

No, you see the thing is that only thm two section are copyright violations, the rest is fine, I do know how to use the {{copyvio}} tag so I linked it to the homepage as it was two separate areas of the official website in which were copyrighted from, please tell me if you have any other comments.Telly addict 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where there is existing, non-copyvio content, procedure is to revert to an uninfringing version. Copyvio content goes into the page history, where readers won't see it, and if the copyright owner wants it removed, the offending versions can be removed from the history by an admin.

Template:Copyvio should only be applied to a blanked page. In addition, you should follow the instructions on the template itself, and log the alleged copyvio on the appropriate page (e.g. see today's page). — mholland 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, it is only Oversights who can hide revisions from a page history, not sysops.Telly addict 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/h/o/User_talk%7EMholland_ab81.html"