Talk:Will Hay

message: :Erm, if the link is wrong, then edit the damned thing! Don't worry - I'll do it for you on this occasion. Zaphod Beeblebrox 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Teescopes

message: :Image:Will-Hay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Will-Hay.jpg

message: I suggest including a sentance that a blue plaque was erected at 45 The Chase, Norbury, London, SW16 by English Heritage as Hay resided there between 1927 and 1934Genealogy Jo (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add info re Blue Plaque 

message: I suggest adding a reference to the 1901 census entry RG13, peice 554, folio 151, p 35 showing Hay residing at 40 Merritt Rd Brockley, London. NB The entry was incorrectly transcribed onto Ancestry.co.uk database as William G Hay. However, it means the education info is not wholly accurate.Genealogy Jo (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add info re 1901 census which impacts upon accuracy of education section 

message: I suggest adding info that Hay passed his Pilots license on 14th April 1926 at the London Aeroplane Club, Edgeware, London, Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificate card number 7989, Genealogy Jo (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add info re Civil Aviators Pilot Licence 

message: I suggest adding that Hay was living at 17 Brighton Strret, Broughton, Salford, Lancashire, and gave his occupation as Music Hall artiste (comedian), in the 1911 census, ref RG14, peice 2003, reference RG78PN1382 RD465 SD2 ED27 SN279. Genealogy Jo (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add info re 1911 census 

message: This section about Hay being a noted astonomer is a bit thin on the ground for references. Surely, the observatory dome that can be seen from Hendon Way in Mill Hill, north London, is the University College's Observatory which was built for them alone and not Mr Hay. 
I think that unreferenced sections in the article generally are open to abuse. Where's the evidence that he was a polyglot? Francis Hannaway 10:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mill Hill Observatory 

message: Hi Cassianto - I am not a wikipedia nerd, so I don't have a ton of interest in debating the issue with you at length. Feel free to add back the reference to the Cardiacs song or not. Given the dearth of Will Hay references in popular culture over the last, oh, 50 years, I'm not sure why you want to repeatedly remove one of the few references to him. But whatever. --Andyhkchan (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither am I, but I thank for the personal attack from the get go.  I think we know, now, where this is heading.  I will not be adding it back, and if you don't want to discuss this, then I guess it never will. But whatever. CassiantoTalk 20:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I do not consider it to be a reliable source, unless you can prove otherwise?  And the YouTube reference shouldn't be used either. And even if you can provide a more reliable source, what makes you think this is worthy of inclusion anyway? CassiantoTalk 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

text: No. How do you know it's this Will Hay they are talking about? Why are you so insistent on this going in to the article? CassiantoTalk 18:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this utter drivel. CassiantoTalk 14:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference to Cardiacs song 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Will Hay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040403234924/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/trevor.buckingham/willhay.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/trevor.buckingham/willhay.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050410200412/http://www.blackhama.freeserve.co.uk/willhay.htm to http://www.blackhama.freeserve.co.uk/willhay.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Will Hay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024092854/http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117793667.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0 to http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117793667.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070124213742/http://homepage.mac.com/elliottday/willhay/willhaysoundsindex.html to http://homepage.mac.com/elliottday/willhay/willhaysoundsindex.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking at the Dr Benjamin Twist twist page, I note that it has the three films for the character in the order of Good Morning, Boys, Hey! Hey! USA!, and Convict 99. It specifically states that Convict 99, "was released shortly after Hey! Hey! USA! However, the individual pages state the release dates as:
* Convict 99 - 26 September 1938
* Hey! Hey! USA! - October 1938
In addition, the BBFC has Convict 99 classified on 17 May 1938, and Hey! Hey! USA! on 14 September 1938. Meanwhile, the filmography on this page dates Convict 99 as 1939. All seems a bit of a mess, really. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: If this is what Wikipaedia is like, where new people are not welcomed and our changes reverted, I do not want to do this anymore. Yours Sincerely, Betty  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyLou1931 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What are  talking about?  You were welcomed, only today.  Just because you've had an edit undone, doesn't mean it's the end of the world.  I even left you a handy piece of advice on your talk page.  Where was my hello? CassiantoTalk 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Off-screen, Hay was described as... a very serious and private man, and some thought he may have had a dark side due to his demeanour.
:'Dark side', meaning what? Manic depressive? Homicidal maniac? Drug addict? Can you clarify? Valetude (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Dark side'? 

message: There has been some edit warring around the infobox recently. To remind those who should know better, WP:BRD strongly advises discussion of the matter, not just reverting. The infobox was removed over four years and that is the WP:STATUSQUO. If people would like to change it, they need to discuss, even if they are an administrator. - 213.205.194.173 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not edit warring when the other editor is a sock. You were the one who removed it without discussion after it had been on the article for nearly a decade. It's clear that decision was contested, because it was re-added several times, with you re-removing it time and time again. You cannot claim "retirement" and then return to past disruption. It seems I will have to semi this article to prevent further block evasion. Any editor under good standing (not evading a block) is free to open up a discussion about the IB. Sro23 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

text: *Four and a half years ago it was a bold edit; despite your supervote in edit warring and protecting the article (an action that screams WP:INVOLVED), that’s a standard action. Since then it has become the STATUSQUO. This is an open thread about the box, but you have decided to edit war and ignore the long-standing consensus for your own personal reasons. That’s a really, really poor way to approach something. Take away the personal grudge and try and act in a reasonable manner please - and that involves remembering INVOLVED and not supervoting on something.  - 213.205.194.4 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting a sock does not make me involved, and I didn't supervote. I don't care whether or not this article gets an infobox, which is why I said just a little bit ago "any editor under good standing...is free to open up a discussion about the IB". If I had reverted a regular old editor then that would be a different story, but because you are a sock, I am exempt. And using your same logic, the bold edit that added the IB back in August and remained uncontested all these months despite multiple users having edited the article in between is the new status quo and someone wanting to remove that would need consensus. Sro23 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked for “Abusing multiple accounts”? I am not abusing multiple accounts. I do not have an account (I have an old account that I do not have access to, but I do not have “multiple accounts”). This is the second time you have told a straight out lie in order to block me. It’s a shame you cannot be honest to yourself let alone other people while wielding your little bit of power. I actually feel a bit sorry for you that you cannot do even the basic things properly or honestly. 109.249.185.125 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring