User talk:Refsworldlee/archive03

Archives
2 January – 14 April 2007 15 April – 22 July 2007 23 July – 23 October 2007 24 October 2007 – 17 January 2008 18 January – 10 April 2008 13 April 2008 – 29 July 2017 21 August 2017 – 26 February 2019 26 March 2019 – 18 September 2021 25 September 2021 – 15 June 2024

iHipo

Hi, you repeatedly deleted www.iHipo.com from the list of SN sites. Please do a Google search on iHipo and you might change your opinion that the site is not noteable. I have re-added it. Montipat 00:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would delete it again and again if necessary (someone else has actually, so I'm not wrong!) - websites cannot be notable after a launch of only a month - it's impossible. However, many editors are unable to see past their pet projects, and are blind to WP:NOTABLE because of their commitment to a cause or subject. That's then a violation of WP:COI, and another reason why I have never swerved from deleting anything I have seen as non-notable. Although I am no longer watching the List, due to the snowblindness of the said editors (and a few admins who support this nn notability phenomenon), I will still delete, or submit for deletion, anything else listed or articled I see as nn, in the spirit of Jimmy Wales. Thanks and good luck with future editing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Tanner

I noticed that on your userpage you say you don't think the article Steve Tanner (referee) should be created because he isn't notable. However, now that he's been promoted to the select group ([1]) do you think it's alright for his article to be created? - Boy1jhn 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll create the Steve Tanner article some time today, though it will probably have to start out as a stub, depending on how much information can be found about him. - Boy1jhn 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Winter

Hi there Lee,

Thanks very much for getting back to me by email.

I got your message on my talk page and replied to it. I thought you would pick it up but I obviously got that wrong. I'm not properly familiar with Wiki.

As you mentioned it in your mail, I'm not trying to exert any pressure at all and I didn't want to take it up with Wiki until I had spoken to you.

I read the article you referred to and I can't comment on it. Is it a reliable source? It contains no quotes at all and I haven't heard of the site before.

The bottom line is he asked me to change the page as he is 100% definitely not a mason. If Jeff says he isn't a mason and would like the sentence changing, then that is all we need to know, simple as that. You can't get any closer to the horse's mouth than this.

We are going to try and take 'ownership' of Jeff's page if this is possible because as I mentioned before, if Jeff wants something changing, it should be changed and we don't expect it to be over-written by someone who doesn't know him personally.

As you clearly have an interest in this, we would definitely like to work with you on it. Would this be something that would be of interest?

Very best wishes to you and it's good to be in touch at last.

Steve ComeOnBoro 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't be interested - I have already tried to explain to you that it is impossible to take ownership of an article. There is nobody specific to ask on this - Wikipedia is guided by appointed administrators, who have certain extra powers. They do not, however, have the power to hand over an article, in fact it is expressly forbidden - they are bound by the same rules as any editor. You first need to thoroughly read the guideline WP:OWN, which will tell you why you cannot control what is written in Jeff's article in Wikipedia, other than through consensus properly discussed. Your only recourse is to ask for Jeff's article to be deleted, if it bothers you and him that much.

As far as your speaking on his behalf goes, that is not really a valid exercise where the subject of his being a freemason, or not a freemason, is concerned. Editors work on the hard facts gleaned from searches on the internet and the bookshelves - encyclopedic information gathered and supported by reliable independent sources. Having read the source I quoted, you must admit that it states quite categorically that he is. Working on that, the info, as encyclopedic, was introduced into the article in good faith - another pillar of the guidelines. To remove it without discussing the matter on the article talk page, and without providing hard sources to show why it should not be included, is seen either as vandalism or censorship, for whatever reason.

Where the particular subject in question is concerned, it is well known that brothers of the Masonic lodges never like to be identified in public, and it might be suspected by some editors that you are trying to arrange the removal of the info for that reason. I personally am not suggesting this is the case, merely putting a devil's advocate hat on.

As I have said before, I urge you to introduce yourself on the article talk page, and give your side of things as you see it, in an attempt to gain consensus for the removal of the info. However, I would urge you not to follow the "ownership" idea, as this is guaranteed to inflame the senses of most of the editors, and all of the admins, in Wikipedia. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd gladly to try to help on this matter, but I'm not really sure which is the best action, so I've raised it at the BLP noticeboard.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register

Hello, Refsworldlee! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

RJFJR 03:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keith Burge

Regarding my edit, I felt the sentence as I found it was misleading. It did not make clear, as I had originally written, that Burge was the last Welsh referee to serve on the English National List and the reversion does not make this clear either. He was the last Welsh referee to join the List as well (1986) but that was not on the order of UEFA as there was no restriction at the time. Therefore UEFA had no part in "allowing" Burge on to the List because he was already there. This restriction on Welsh referees joining the List only came into force in 1992 with the inception of the Welsh League.

It may be that the language I used could be tidied-up but the article as it stands does not make clear he was the last Welsh referee to leave the English List. However I have no interest in changing things back and if you wish the article to read as it does so be it.Alan Briscoe 12:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

George Courtney

Hi. I wouldn't get too hung up on the word "reporting" if I were you, it might have been a bad choice of word on my part. All I meant was, just as, as you rightly point out, there is no rule that says you can't be sensitive, there is also no rule to prevent articles being updated (if you prefer this to "reported") at the time things happen because of sensitivity concerns. If this was the case, a lot of Wikipedia would not be updated when people die. Seeing as it is at the editors' discretion and you monitor George Courtney's page and felt strongly about the info, then based on your personal opinion, I wasn't minded to put the info back in and won't do so now. But, if we're thinking sensitivity and not relevance to George Courtenay himself, there would be nothing in Wikipedia rules or guidelines to stop that info being up there. Anyway, I'll leave this discussion here now. Best regards Unlikelyheroine 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Social Network Service

Ref, I reinserted EIES, because it is historically important in the history of social network service. Hiltz & Turoff wrote a major book about it (referenced in the article), and there is a major conference in their honour October 2007 at New Jersey Institute of Technology. 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC). Bellagio99 00:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on this article, and look at my contribution today to its Talk page. We have an unfortunate situation, I fear. Bellagio99 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref/official infobox

I've had a go at scratching up an infobox for match officials at User:Nanonic/test (you can see a test of it at User:Nanonic/test1), I'm unsure as to the exact international status of referee's and would appreciate a quick bit of insight. Are officials that are on the FIFA list the only ones allowed to ref/asst ref international matches? or do UEFA etc have their own list? Oh and do you think an infobox such as this would be useful (an IP user requested one on WP:FOOTY), cheers Nanonic 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the template as suggested wrt/Occupation/Other occupation and moved it to {{Infobox football official}}. Please have a shufti at the instructions and examples I've put on their to see if everything's ok. Cheers, Nanonic 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR exceptions

I posted this on User talk:Bellagio99 but will put here too, in case you do not see it.

The 3RR has exceptions and would not apply in this case. I believe so, anyway. Please see 3RR exceptions. Jeeny ^(talk) 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my reply on User talk:Bellagio99. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dangers of Social Network Service

Lee, I posted a note about the "Dangers of Social Network Service" piece on the "Social Network Service" talk page. I did this after I followed the link to the blog. The editor (probably the blog writer) is NOT engaging in the usual linkspam, but basically doesn't understand what WP is about. I think I gave him advice in a constructive way (I've learned from you). See what you think. Bellagio99 13:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted my twopennyworth to the article talk page, as the anonymous user would appear to be on a non-fixed IP address, as dictated by his ISP. Thanks again. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re INSNA

Thanks for all the nice cleanups in the INSNA article yester/today. Bellagio99 00:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite alright, old chap! I entered the article idly just to see what had been added since I last had a look many moons ago, and found all the little tweaks that needed doing. Best wishes as usual. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

old chap, barnstar, etc

		The Society Barnstar
		For all your great work on social science articles, and making Wikipedia a better place. Bellagio99 00:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, no one has ever called me "old chap" in my life (even when I lived in Weybridge and London for a year, so I am honoured, even though you have now outed me at 65. And I have just given you a present on your User Page. But what are you doing up so late in GMT land? Bellagio99 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not, of course, a virtual reference to your existential longevity, but a friendly informal Brit greeting, as you well know. Reserved for those who make an "insomniac" Brit feel at ease, so well done. And thanks for the barnstar, which I will move to the talk page, as I do. Thanks again and good editing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

double thanks

Thanks for prodding business networks. Yup, a misunderstanding of WP. And many thanks for the barnstar. It's great to be recognized. (I took yesterday off and went to "our" Stratford on the Avon, to see a George Gershwin musical -- note all the cultural contradictions!) Bellagio99 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Clattenburg

Thanks for fully reverting the article - I had missed some of the vandalism that was added. I've added in the {{sprotect}} template back in though, as the article's protected for the next 7 days. Qwghlm 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matt Messias, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)