User talk:Codf1977

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Welcome to my talk page, please remember to post new comments and topics at the bottom of the page or the section in which you are discussing and sign every post you make here by simply adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message.
Codf1977 (talk)

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Stonehouse Brick and Tile Co Ltd

Unless you object, I've got all the various pages watchlisted and I'm going to give the page creator a couple of days to respond to the merge tag, then merge it and see if he reverts again. If he does, I'll list it at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#Requests_for_assistance_and_feedback to get some discussion going. I do think that the information in the pdf could be rewritten in a non–copyvio summary and that this could be a decent separate article, but it could really use one more reliable source (I've looked quickly for one and couldn't find it) to firmly establish notability before it goes or remains separate. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me to that plan. Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator agreed to the merge, and I've done it with a few embellishments. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good job - BTW - I have no idea why my post to the copyright board did not save. Codf1977 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about Ragoon11

Dear Codf1977, I decided to write you because I don't know how to cope with editor Ragoon11 and it's IP address 92.24.190.146. Apart from not accepting the views of other editors on University College London and King's College London, Ragoon11 constantly reverts all unfavourable changes and tries to insult members of Wikipedia with respect to the colleges Ragoon11 believes they come from. I've stopped interfering into "Ragoon's articles" because it's just impossible to change her / his mind. If you can, please provide with additional support for protection of such articles from violating Wikipedia's rules. Kind regards, 87.194.84.46 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Codf1997 that you found some time to cool down Ragoon11's activity on Wikipedia. I really appreciate it. 87.194.84.46 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take zero pleasure in it, my wish is that there 3 month wiki-holiday will allow them time to brush up on how wp works. Codf1977 (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Michael Kerr (rugby)

I have removed the template for deletion on the Michael Kerr (rugby) article. Your grounds for it are invalid, in my view. Michael Kerr is a dual international for Germany, both in rugby union and rugby league and it was for the reson of his appearance for Germany in union that I created the article. Considering that the German rugby union team takes part in international competitions like the ENC and the WC Qualifing, I think the players called up for the team are notable enough. I would agree with you however, if Kerr was a rugby league internaional only, that version of the game in Germany is very minor still. Calistemon (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and signing

I'm no expert, and I stole it from a block template, but {{YGM}} has some rudimentary signing-when-subst'd capabilities, if that helps? There was some bizarre template idiom at play, something like splitting the four tildes with a noinclude, so that it only signs when subst'd. Don't know if that helps? (This is from me stalking HighKing's talkpage...) TFOWR 13:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will have a look and see what I can do. Codf1977 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted - my sandbox version {{User:Codf1977/BID}} now signs automatic and has a |nogig=Yes input (well anything on that input works) for those who don't want to. Codf1977 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PwC

The major client sections of these articles have been carefully built up over a number of years. Rather than launching into an edit war please can you be so kind as to reinstate the material in the PwC article for now and then express you views on the talk page. It makes no sense to delete the PwC list but retain the Deloitte, Deloitte and KPMG lists. Dormskirk (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not, I have removed them from the others - they have zero encyclopaedic value and are clearly promotional - the only reason any company publishes it's client list is for reasons of promotion. Codf1977 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the deletion of all four lists means that all four are now treated the same. But don't you think you should have given other editors the opportunity to comment first? Dormskirk (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OUCA

You don't seem to be an Oxonian, and certainly not a member of OUCA. I don't see therefore why you would be so interested in detracting from the sum of human knowledge here through wiping 15 years of ex-Presidents and making a list incomplete. The bulk of the list can be traced from the Internet Archive website, and if the remainder still offends I am happy to compile a schedule of OUCA termcards as definitive sources. Uncantabrigian (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what I am is of no issue - the issue here is of total lack of independent and reliable sources for this information - since we know at least one mistake has been made with this list, unless you can provide thoes independent and reliable sources, which if the OUCA is notable should not be hard, then the list should stay as it is. Codf1977 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will deign to reply on your page, though you do not do me the courtesy on commenting on mine, instead directing me to read you talking at yourself here.

The question is of some importance. The fact you use the term "the OUCA" which is never used in Oxford indicates you have no idea about the organisation you are deleting information about; it indicates you are doing it out of little more than malice. Your questioning that an Association which in 85 years has produced three former leaders of the Conservative Party (two Prime Ministers and a Foreign Secretary), and umpteen Cabinet Ministers amongst its ex-Presidents alone, to say nothing of ex-Officers, indicates the latter.

I trust you will accept a store of OUCA termcards held by an ex-Treasurer of OUCA, and OUCA webpages held by the "Internet Archive" as independent and reliable sources. As I noted on the relevant page, no history of the Association has been written since Blair and Page in 1995. It is a student society and to imagine some historian is busy collating its transactions unless asked to do so is ludicrous.

For further information, the Blair and Page volume is available in the New Bod (you won't know what that is either, but I assume you will presume to comment upon it and edit its Wikipedia page too) and a thoroughly enjoyable volume it is too. An archive of OUCA termcards are held there too. Please have a look round at your convenience before deleting publicly-available knowledge made available here for the world's edification. Uncantabrigian (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easer to keep all the conversation together so if you post here, I will reply here. It is not about what I will accept - it is about WP norms - at this time all the post 95 information is suspect, I will leave it in for now, however you need to provide independent and reliable sources for the information. Codf1977 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment

You are persisting in harrassing me and I should let you know that I will now be making a formal complaint about your behaviour.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did already - at Shell Kinney talk page - and she made it clear that I was not when she replied. Codf1977 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCL

Comments from a sock of Rangoon11
Please stop deleting large sections of factual and cited material from the opening paragraphs of University College London. You are making no attempt at discussion on the talk page and no attempt to propose alternative wording. I am happy to discuss wording if you will engage in a dialogue. TinaMH (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoon11

PRODding all his articles when you know he can't contest the deletion (even if it is his fault) is unfair and does nothing to disprove his accusations of harassment. Can I ask you to just leave him alone until his block expires. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a second, I have been extremely transparent with this making sure that I alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities (see here) clearly asking for a "another set of eys to look over them as well" - the reasons for the PROD's are based on the guidelines. I don't think it is fair to ask me not to act the articles while he is blocked. Codf1977 (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HJ, 3 months seems an awfully long time to wait for a disruptive editor's block to expire. If they go down as prods, he can always ask for WP:REFUND when he comes back. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unfair to me that you began proposing multiple articles he's written for deletion as soon as he's blocked, but perhaps that's just me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]