User talk:Whizz40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whizz40, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Whizz40! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I love your LIBOR work! Let's hope the NYSE admin doesn't fall in to the abuse trap. EllenCT (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks EllenCT, the Libor reforms are important changes. --Whizz40 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify your reasoning for your recent deletions from the Democracy Article[edit]

Dear Whizz,

You have recently deleted from the History section of the Democracy Article, the fact that the American state was founded as a "representative form of government". Could you please explain your reasoning for this deletion? It seems to me that this fact is very relevant here, is it not? Why not? Could you please document why you might feel that this fact might be inappropriate in an article section about the historical development of democracy at the founding of the United States?

You have also deleted from that section, the fact that the American Revolution was the very first time in modern history that monarchism was successfully replaced with a representative form of government, apparently claiming that this fact was an "over simplification", and therefore, I would assume, somehow misleading. Could you please also explain your reasoning for that deletion as well? In exactly what way do you feel that this fact in this section might somehow be a "misleading oversimplification"? Could you please document your feelings to that effect?

Your clarification of your reasoning for these two deletions would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scott, it's not that I disagree with your points, I'm editing to maintain the quality of the article overall. There is a temptation for each editor to add the point they are more interested in or feel most strongly about. The aspects you raise are discussed in other parts of the article, and I think the remaining edits we made are good and add to the quality of the article. --Whizz40 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Whizz, The one event which seems to me to be quite significant, but which you have deleted was the American event of 1776 which marked the first time in recent history that a successful overthrow of a monarchical system occurred, followed by its replacement with a democratically elected leadership, and that this political shift was then followed by numerous other similar shifts towards democracy throughout the world. I could find no other discussion of this particular event anywhere else in the article, and it seems to me that it was a somewhat relevant historical event, worthy of noting in an article section on the history of democracy. Could you please specifically explain why you might feel that this event was either not "important" enough, or why it might somehow pose as too much of a "misleading over simplification", to warrant inclusion in this article?
While Americans may have fumbled around a great deal since 1776, I don't think that there are many historians who would tell you 1776 was irrelevant to the development of democracy in the world. How specifically might you feel that inclusion of a reference to this event in the article would "degrade" the quality of this article?
Other than this, I am satisfied with our edits.
Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Scott, I think it's fair to say the ideas of the revolution and rights conferred by the Constitution developed over time. At the same time democracy was developing of its own accord in many countries around the world. We need to be careful not to promote one form of democracy over others. Nor to overstate the influence of events in one part of the world on others. Successful overthrow of a monarchical system in not essential to democracy; development of a constitutional monarchy can be just as effective, as has been the case in many countries.
Regarding your latest change, this is covered in the previous section of the article. The Parliament of England was long-standing before this and was more powerful than the monarch by this time. The most recent edit clarifies this. --Whizz40 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As you will, the American revolution for democracy was irrelevant to democracy. I will allow you to rest your case, though I would ask you to consider your own national background, and whether or not you might personally be favoring one form of democracy over another. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Scott, we could add a point about the Bill of Rights in 1791 guaranteeing a number of personal freedoms and legal rights. I don't think many other countries would attribute their own revolutions to that of another. For France at least, the financial impact of their actions to support the American revolution was probably a more significant driver of their revolution than cultural or social influence. I have relatives on both sides of the Atlantic some with dual citizenship so I am indifferent as long as the content is neutral, as it should be in an encyclopaedia. Since we share the same language we share the same wikipedia :) --Whizz40 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit reversal clarification[edit]

I inadvertently mangled the summary explanation for my reversal of your recent good faith edit to the United States Constitution article, so I thought I'd leave a note of clarification for you here. Going by MOS/L I concluded that the article you linked to, Presidential system#Criticism and disadvantages, is not the most specific topic appropriate to, nor is it specifically about criticisms of the United States Constitution. Drdpw (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drdpw, makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the Making[edit]

Thanks for your edits in and around Parliament in the Making — great minds think alike. Note that I have contacted User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK), suggesting that WMUK organise some events for these anniversaries. If you're based in the UK, I hope that we might meet there. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, please keep me in the loop. Whizz40 (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your latest large updates but I'm afraid I felt I had to revert them as it seems that too much of the phrasing was cut and paste from external sources. I have put an example on the article's talk page. This is policed quite strictly on Wikipedia - please see WP:COPYVIO for guidance. Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Andrew, I clicked too hastily, before I had written what I actually had in mind, which I shouldn't have done. Written now in my sandbox is what I had in mind at the time. Welcome any thoughts on this. Whizz40 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, I wondered if you had a chance to review my edits to close out this discussion. Happy if you want to leave it to others but no one has picked it up from DYK yet, and would be good to close it out. Whizz40 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Formula 1[edit]

Rescue Barnstar Hires.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
Thanks for your bold and timely rescue work on Formula 1. Andrew D. (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. -Arb. (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Simon de Montfort's parliament[edit]

Hello Whizz40. I thought moving this page would be uncontroversial, but of course happy to have a discussion on the talk page. Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Moonraker: with the additional context given on the talk page and having had time to look through the other edits, I support the article move and your improvements to the other articles. Whizz40 (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
p.s. I read up on Wikipedia:Citation templates and found they are neither encouraged nor discouraged (but consensus is encouraged), and read up on the usage of realise vs realize here and at Oxford English Dictionary#Spelling which I found interesting. Whizz40 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

parliament in the making[edit]

Hi Whizz40, I'm no expert on these topics, and recognise that history is much more complex than a table might suggest, but my aim has been to offer some clarity via these tables, so thanks for your help with tidying my clumsy starting suggestions. Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yadsalohcin, the initial table draft was the insightful part. For the latest additions to See also, these are already linked in the article and I recall the usual approach WP:SEEALSO is to use this section for links to articles not linked in the main body. Only mentioning because my sense in this case is a shorter list will be more useful for readers if the other links are available in context in the table above. Whizz40 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination[edit]

Hi Whizz40, while we were discussing Simon de Montfort's parliament, I noticed that you were thinking of nominating it for WP:GAN. If you go ahead with that, would you be interested in doing a quid pro quo? I nominated my article Rwandan Revolution at GA today, and I could do the review of Simon de Montfort's parliament if you would be able to review mine. No worries if you'd rather not, or if you decide not to go ahead with GA anyway, just thought I'd ask :) Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, thanks for the thought and it looks like an interesting and important article. In terms of GA review, I have not done one before and and am not familiar with the topic area; I realise experience with either is not necessary but I think if you let it run through the normal process, you might get someone with specialist knowledge of either GA reviews and/or the topic area which could produce a better article in the end. Whizz40 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I read through the article last night and read the good article reviewing guide and i will be able to review your article. In terms of SdeM's Parliament, i will nominate it. Some medieval articles have been picked up quickly, such as Magna Carta, but that is a more prominent topic although longer. If it does get picked up quickly then feel free to pick another article for a QPQ. Whizz40 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I see you have nominated Simon de Montfort's parliament now, so I'll wait until next week, if it's not done by then I'll pick it up for you, otherwise I'll pick another one as you suggest. Thanks again!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Simon de Montfort's Parliament[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simon de Montfort's Parliament you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amakuru -- Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to you and the other contributors on a well written and interesting article! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Simon de Montfort's Parliament[edit]

The article Simon de Montfort's Parliament you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Simon de Montfort's Parliament for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amakuru -- Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)