User talk:Laddiebuck

This user may have left Wikipedia. Laddiebuck has not edited Wikipedia since 22 January 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm glad you decided to sign up! Thanks for your contributions. Let me be the first to say hello, give you some tips, and share a few useful links.

One thing we like to tell newcomers is to be bold! By this we mean don't be afraid to join the rest of us in improving the articles you see here. Most Wikipedians are friendly and patient, willing to give you the same respect you give them, no matter who they are or how long they've been here.

Still, some newcomers find that it's also good to be cautious. You may want to start out small and learn the ropes by fixing typos or just browsing. If so, that's okay, too. If you spot an error on a page, go ahead and fix it! If it's a big edit or a controversial issue, you may want to look at the article's talk page to see if the issue has been discussed in the past. It's important to cite references and set personal points of view aside.

Now that you have your own user name, you can sign your discussions by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically stamp your user name, the time, and the date. That will help other users reply to your posts.

I hope this information is useful to you, and I'm looking forward to seeing your contributions. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me for help. Kafziel 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Monad notations cleanup?

Hi Laddiebuck, saw you adding the cleanup box to Monads in functional programming#Notations. Could you specify, by choice at the article talk page Talk:Monads in functional programming, what caught your eye and what we could do about it? --TuukkaH 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

(Removed warning)

I'm guessing you used a bot/program for that -- just letting you know it was a mistake, not a vandalism. Thanks. laddiebuck 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Since it was merely a mistake I removed the above warning. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. And congrats on the bot, it caught that edit in what must have been just seconds. :) laddiebuck 07:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands

Crazy! And actually, I am 1/4 magyar... My grandma was born there, although where she was born is nowadays Romania. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

:) Indeed, crazy! Have you visited Hungary? If you get the chance, I recommend it, it's a pretty country. laddiebuck 22:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is, I have friends who traveled to Budapest, but I haven't been able to do so myself. I really want to do Vienna (My grandfather's from there) and Budapest in what I like to call "the Danube Trip". Funny, 'cause my grampa laughed every time he heard "Beautiful Blue Danube" (the waltz, obviously) and said: "I was born in 1915 and I never saw the Danube being blue!!!" :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather was born in 1916, just a year later than yours. And it's true, the circumstances have to be pretty special for the Danube to appear blue. Then again Hungary is a second-world country and regulations on waste are not exactly strongly enforced -- I suppose because of the Communist background. And without a doubt, Vienna is the more beautiful city of the pair. laddiebuck 22:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I heard, Budapest wasn't that bad either. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 04:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note about the EU

Whether it should be included or not, if it's included, it should use correct capitalisation and grammar. It reads:

Note: It must be noted that The European Union (EU) is not simply a regional bloc in the common sense. The EU is a Union of sovereign States with the deepest connections in the political, economical and executive fields. Thus, it is a far more integrated bloc than any other regional bloc or cooperative association of sovereign States in the world.

But should read:

Note: It must be noted that the European Union (EU) is not simply a regional bloc in the common sense. The European Union is a union of sovereign states with the deepest connections in the political, economical and executive fields. Thus, it is a far more integrated bloc than any other regional bloc or cooperative association of sovereign states in the world.

Please change it in all articles, or better yet, use it in a template instead for easier changes. Thanks! —Nightst a llion (?) 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, Princess Royal Kidnap attempt

Yes a lot better now. ant_ie 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. laddiebuck 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faeryland

You took a redirect to a useful and detailed article and pointed it towards a barely complete stub. Why did you do that without discussion? Nandesuka 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because "Faerie", "Faery", and "Fairyland" do not mean the same as "Fairy", thus the redirect is invalid. The Fairy article does not cover Faerie, so I decided to create a new article, and wrote a short stub for it. Now please answer my question. laddiebuck 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child/Childhood

Just so you know, the only reason I put a merge tag on Childhood was because there was an unreciprocated tag on Child, and a merge looked plausible offhand. I don't really have a position on the debate to merge or not, but if you don't want a merge tag on Childhood, you might want to remove the the tag on Child that points there. ENeville 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. There used to be a merge tag, but someone took it off after there was no activity on it. They probably forgot to remove the other merge tag. Thanks. laddiebuck 16:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing instances of English, Welsh, Scottish etc to British

Please do not do this. I have rolled back your edits. You are using an essay you made up as justification for changes that are not supported by either the MoS or any kind of consensus. Proto ► 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I find your arrogance quite amazing. The general consensus, after many debates and arguments all of which you have ignored, is to have English, Welsh etc. The UK is differant from other countries, and Wikipedia is sensible are recognising this. A current idea is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Proposition: Change in Style of Introductory Paragraphs, so why not contribute there for changing en masse. --Berks105 09:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion you linked, the course of action I took is actually described as being within the MOS. Of course, this being Wikipedia, there will probably be a SNP government before a consensus is reached... it's rather silly really, that Wikipedia caters to the populist view so much, when there have been established ways of doing things in the world of encyclopaedias for quite a long time. Still, not my business apparently. And there's nothing I could add to that debate, nothing that anyone would pay the slightest heed to anyway. laddiebuck 04:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there has been little discussion there, which is one reason I linked you to it. There is no consensus on that page at all, only User:Cypriotstud believes what you believe. There has been far too little discussion on it to be any consensus reached in that particular discussion. Regarding "So your reverting my edits was also unjustified and irrational"; firstly I point out is wasnt just me reverting them, but at least 3 differant people. And it was not irrational, as I believe MaisOui points out very well in the discussion page mentioned. -- Berks105 19:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS states the subjects of articles should be identified primarily by their nationality, not ethnicity. That much is true. However, your belief (theory? idea?) that English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish are ethnic groups, rather than nationalities, is very much a minority view, and one that is absolutely not supported. Proto ► 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, as our American cousins would say? I don't believe they're really separate ethnic groups, that's just an opinion someone has. I do believe that nationality does not refer to the home countries specifically. If you want evidence of this, well, why shouldn't I back up my argument with Wikipedia? Read about British Nationality Law and wake me up if anyone mentions English, Scottish, or Welsh nationality. laddiebuck 01:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help if I could, I completely support editing the articles on famous Britons. Aslong as Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland remain part of the UK; people who are born there or have only a British passport are infact British, it is really annoying when people try to make their opinion sound like fact. As it stands what i'm saying is a fact and I shall continue to correct files about 'said' Britons until this becomes a standard on wiki when creating pages. Unfortunately I am unsure as how to sign my post so i'll just leave my username 'Tallicalad'.

Hullo! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an objective encyclopedia. There are countless opinion-driven conflicts on issues that traditional encyclopedias simply don't have, because they are written by experts. On the other hand, coverage is much broader. Some that I participated in and which frustrated me with Wikipedia were Operation Barbarossa (the results box seems to change from Axis vs Allied victory about once a day) and this nationalism thing.

One user helpfully posted a Request for Help or whatever at the Helpdesk. I'll post the link later. The conclusion was that the correct nationality is "British" but it would never fly with the editors, so the incorrect policy is tacitly followed.

Use four tildes after each other, no spaces, to sign your name. laddiebuck 18:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic posted on my behalf:

[1]

An earlier topic by someone else

[2]

I share your concerns

I trust the title says it all - but the issue has surfaced again, but I'm very familliar with ethinicity, ethnic identity and nationality and want to have this one out. A large discussion has formed at (somewhat ironically) the Bernard Manning talk page (under Channel 4). I'd welcome your input. Jhamez84 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Murder of Meredith Kercher

Your edits to this article, coupled with your edit summary, violate the policy on original research. I, too, am a UW student, but will make no qualifications about what I think Amanda Knox is capable of. I will not revert the edits, I just wanted to make you aware that your edit may be challenged. Cumulus Clouds 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm aware of the policy. The edit comment was meant to reflect emotion rather than the logic underlying the decision. It is clearly incorrect (and original research, I suppose), to over-generalise the opinion of some UW students to all of them. I merely qualified that. Thanks for your comment, though. laddiebuck (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of The Bluestars

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Bluestars, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Bluestars seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Bluestars, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Emma-Peel Avengers-Intro.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Emma-Peel Avengers-Intro.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and Paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Harold Williams (disambiguation) a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Tassedethe (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Pattersons

The article The Pattersons has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Laddiebuck. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray

The article List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unsourced trivia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LadyofShalott 21:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]