User talk:Hardylane

Nothing special to say... I just trawl around adding detail as and when I know it.

Image:Brian Wilson 1965.jpg

I deleted this image because it was unsourced and used solely do illustrate the Brian Wilson infobox, without any accompanying critical commentary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most infoboxes regularly contain an image pertaining to the article in question. In this case, a photo a Brian Wilson, one of the world's most famous and prolific composers, producers and performers seems warranted to me.

I restrict my editing of articles to those in which I have an interest or specific knowledge, yet some people, such as yourself, wander around applying your edits willy-nilly. Sorry if this sounds rude, but then again, some would say that a stranger, wandering to a room and deleting something, would also appear to some to be rather rude. Hardylane 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of Wilson is certainly warranted, as long as it is under a free license, as dictated by Wikipedia fair use criteria for images of living persons. I also restrict my editing to subjects I have an interest in or specific knowledge of. Image copyright is one of those subjects. For what its worth, I found a free-licensed alternative photograph of Wilson and uploaded it to Commons as Image:Brian Wilson, goofy.jpg. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

report issued at ANI about vandal problem

I have issued a request at ANI about our Brian Wilson vandal. Please see this link to comment: [1] --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock n Roll Swindle album cover

Added a very extensive rationale to the pic. If this doesn't shut the bot up, I don't know what will. Rien Post (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Julie Hesmondhalgh

Regarding appropriate external links, you should read through WP:EL. The charity sites were not directly related to Julie Hesmondhalgh nor did they provide supporting information for the article (which should be in citations anyway), but were merely general websites of those charities. The external links were redundant as these organisations were already mentioned in the article's final paragraph. However, internal wikilinks to these could be considered instead where articles exist. Also, please review WP:LINKSPAM as promotion of external links not specifically related to an article's subject could be considered inappropriate. Dl2000 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Ash

Hi there. I've removed the final line you added to this article, in this edit last September:[2]. I think it crosses the line set by WP:BLP, which forbids unsourced negative commentary about living people. I'm sure you think you were 'just stating the facts', but your edit implies her claim for compensation was somehow fraudulent. When covering living people, we need to be very careful what we say. Thanks for reading, and happy editing. Robofish (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. I'll reword it a bit. The fact remains that the basis of her court compensation claim was the fact she would never work again, hence her £5 million payout. She has, however, gone on to work again. People can draw their own conclusions. Hardylane (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coronation Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Baldwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Chorlton-cum-Hardy. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome?? I have been a Wikipedia member for nearly 10 years, so I don't feel you need to patronise me. I don't know who this Eric idiot is, but his edits are destructive and unnecessary, hence the reversions. I want some of the page maintainers to wade into this as here has been NO debate, just several self-important edits during the course of one day by a very rude, very stupid man. Hardylane (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template. If you want a better one, I'll change it. And I'll even give you another one. Also, please read WP:EW. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hardy. You've been here 10 years, work on Manchester articles, yet have never heard of Eric Corbett/Malleus? Most of the Manechester area FAs and GAs on wikipedia were written by him. Does that seem the sort of editor who'll make lousy edits to an article? If he comes across as arrogant and believes he's right over content issues it's usually because he is right about it and has a good insight into what constitutes a good article and what sort of content comes across as unencyclopedic. I understand that you feel your work is being threatened and butchered, but did you try to analyse the edits he made and try to see it from another perspective?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Crisco 1492. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you just let people like him behave abominably and get away with it? Hardylane (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You both edit warred (full stop). You have both stopped now, thanfully, so no blocks on that front. He has asked you to calm down. You are the one continuing, with three PAs on three pages. Please stop, or else other measures will have to be taken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find rude people extremely taxing, but will leave it for now.. Hardylane (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Same old story -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy boat comes in

Is that a Wiki policy you quote in your edit summary? One might argue that, in the late 1980s, when Isao Tomita turned to electronic music, Wendy was still most definitely Walter; in the same way that, in 1940, John Lennon was born in Lancashire and not in Merseyside, which hadn't yet been created? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quote Wiki policy as rote... but it is common practice in these more enlightened times not to refer to trans people by their previous name (no matter at what point in the person's life is being referred to) It is acceptable to say "Wendy (formerly Walter)", but not an outright misgendering. Have a look at other trans people's wiki entries for this. Hardylane (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong view. But he was certainly Walter at that time. Additonally, I'd suggest that his gender, then or now, has no bearing on the influence his music had in the 1980s. This may all be a bit of a fuss over nothing anyway, of course, in that he's just being mentioned there as context. No one is suggesting that Tomita was directly or particularly influenced by Carlos. "Wendy (formerly Walter)" might be a good compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hayley Cropper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 2 November 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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hardylane. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hardylane. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]