User talk:ThW5

Franco-Belgian comics/Belgian comics/Flemish comics/...[edit]

Hello ThW5, I have created a temporary page here. to gather facts and content about Flemish comics that could be later on added in Franco-Belgian comics article as a new section. Feel free to add, reformat, rewrite, comment, ... Lvr 10:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Frisian?[edit]

How exactly would Kent count (how does this relate, in other words)?Myrtone

Well, I don't know. Try to google for "Frisians colonized Kent", about 450 AD. ThW5 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Whitebread[edit]

I deleted this article because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Whitebread. There was consensus that the article did not meet our threshold for inclusion. seresin ( ¡? ) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the article on my own opinion. I just carried out an AfD. If what you say is true, there will be significant coverage from reliable sources verifying those claims. Do you have any? seresin ( ¡? ) 17:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? A lack of well informed responses, rather.

Which claim?

http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue02/features/comics.htm (comment on the end of the page, this is the kind of use, which made me decide that Wikipedia should have a kids safe description, of the book).

http://www.forbisthemighty.com/acidlogic/comics_that_made_me.htm

Which is a good reason to restore it, is also that the full title is used for a fictional comic book in this book: http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/9781400066506.asp

Let alone the links in comic book articles linking to it.

The only source that could possibly show notability is the second one. But it doesn't appear to be very reliable. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What more do you want? The book is a byword, it is generally used as something which is bad ThW5 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Descriptions are usually limited to "infamous". Look, do you know anything about adult comic books?[reply]

The article needs to satisfy out notability criteria. Therefore, it must have been significantly discussed by reliable sources that are independant of the subject. And no, I do not. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I bother with you then? I mean how does De Groene Amsterdammer answer that demand?ThW5 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not recreate this article. Consensus was that the article did not merit inclusion, and therefore was deleted. You must have sources to assert notability. You cannot just claim it is notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus??? There was just one reaction.

OK, Amazing Heroes #198: "One of the most notorious titles of smut glut returns as the title heroine ofWendy Whitebread #2 becomes addicted to sex".

In Comics, Comix & Graphic Novels A history of Comic Art, page 208: "The 1990's saw less of this extreme material, but a prallel descent into pure smut: Most noriously, the Eros line featured such titles as Wendy Whitebread (1991) and Time Wankers- which, frankly, need no further explanation."

The most idiotic thing is that Wendy Whitebread is listed as a notable comic book title of the Eros line here on WIKIPEDIA 145.53.234.50 (talk) 145.53.234.50 (talk)ThW5 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Silence equals consensus. As for your sources, they don't significantly cover the novel, as best I can tell from what you provided. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What novel are you talking about? Look, that kind of renarks give me the impression that you not only are unaware what we are talking about, but that you are also unable to understand this. Look I have put the information on Wikipedia, I don't care what languague it is in. However, Red links inidicate a in my book a wish for an article, which means that the Englisgh Wikipedia needs an article on Wendy Whitebread, perhaps not this one, I have no problem with that.

I am aware of that guideline, I however want to see whether that consensus is still present now--ThW5 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Horses[edit]

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that I tweaked your edits to Friesian horse a bit. You added some useful and helpful material, but it needed some wordsmithing, and one deleted section made some of the new material make no sense, so I restored it. I also wikilinked to some other articles. We can discuss the article on its talk page in more detail. Basically, just so you know, the article needs to conform to the Neutral point of view standard, without too many peacock words, and in a perfect world, we would find footnotes for a lot of what is stated in the article (footnoting an already written article is daunting, but doable). The other thing is that this is English wikipedia, so conventions in spelling as used in English are appropriate, and every single Friesian horse registry I can find that is an English-language registry uses "Friesian," so we really do need to conform to common usage. However, I did move the bit on the spelling question up to the front of the article (with some editing) in hopes that a clear understanding will fend off the near-constant "Frisian/Friesian" fight that has plagued this article on and off for years. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

="However, Friesians had become popular for crossbreeding due to their excellent trot, presence, and color, and as a result, the purebred Friesian was severely threatened. In particular, heavy warmbloods were reducing the number of Friesians, particularly by crossbreeding with "Bovenlander" stock. The Het Friesch Paarden-Stamboek was founded to protect and promote the breed's bloodline."

Look, Wikipedia should not be telling untruths, putting them in articles I consider as Vandalism.

1)Frisians had not become popular for crossbreeding, HEAVY WARMBLOODS HAD, for THEIR qualities. 2)The FPS was not founded to protect and promote the breed's bloodline, though there were founders who saw that as its mission, it was founded to promote the interests of horse breeders, the splitting in the A and B registry, that was in the interest of the breed indeed, but not the registry was not founded to protect the breed.

I will directly restore your vandalism.--ThW5 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. You fail to understand the difference between vandalism, differences of opinion, and wordsmithing.

You are not providing adequate sources for your materials in the article, and your English grammar is very poor. Thus, in an attempt to clarify some very bad writing, I had to rewrite some of your material, and if doing so made it less accurate, then the proper thing to do is to discuss it here, which you did, or to explain it better, BUT NOT to accuse other good-faith editors of vandalizing articles. That is extremely rude. Some of the previous material comes from breed registry pages, and if you do not agree, then simply place the {{fact}} tag by the things you question and we can sort things out in a civilized manner.

Understand that as a wikipedia editor, we are ALL bound by the pillars of wikipedia, including Neutral point of view and Verifiability. The horse breed articles often are written by people who are passionate about their breed, but they have to sound like an encyclopedia. And they need sources that people can check to verify the information provided. Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand the difference between just correcting the most idiotic mistakes you have made by an EXPERT and writing an article.

Please cease these personal attacks. Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks - you aren't supposed to attack other editors, particularly with insulting language. No one has any idea who you are; and even if they do, it's the quality of your edits that matters, that and the verifiability your sources. See No orginal research. Like I said, just fix things in the article if you see a problem, or discuss them on the talk page. That's the way it works here. And please settle down. Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made the history section tell utter nonsense. That is vandalizing, in my opinion, of course, not everybody is himself a bit of an expert on the breed history of the Frisian horse. This is in my opinion not an issue where NPOV is relevant. My point of view is as neutral as can be, it is just better informed as a result of years studying the breed history. Verifiabilty is no real problem, I have the books here, but I had just little time to correct the facts, so I wouldn't have looked at that article now when I have no time to do it well, if you had not posted HERE, which I saw as an expression of your desire for a direct reaction. The breed history is complex, perhaps too complex to describe well in a section of an article about the breed, but that's no reason to put untruths in that section. I have no complaints at all about what you did concerning the spelling issue. --ThW5 (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we tone down the "you" statements and accusations. Understand that ** I ** didn't write the entire article, I am the cleanup crew for a number of horse breed articles (of which there are over 350 on wikipedia). I clean up your edit, I clean up other people's edits. I throw out blatent advertising and tone down the peacock words. I add sources and footnotes. Unless something jumps out as blatent nonsense (like "My pony Susie is bulletproof and bee-yoo-ti-full!") suitable for a revert, or unless someone provides solid references for dramatic change, I usually assume good faith on the part of ALL editors, figure that previous material in a stable article is reasonably accurate, and make an attempt to merge new material into what is already there. Major, well-done changes are left alone IF someone footnotes properly to a source that can be verified. When I have time, I do some research to verify what others have added. If people have major disagreements, they can discuss it on the article talk page.

I added some "citation needed" tags to some of your material, not because I disagree with it, but because, from several GA and FA reviews, the places I tagged have the kind of statements that reviewers want to see sources on. There is no rush to add footnotes, but when you have a chance to get at those books, please do so.

So in conclusion, remember the most important rule of wikipedia: Assume good faith. There is absolutely no reason for you to be this rude. I really thought you'd appreciate a heads up that I tweaked your edits, it was a courtesy that invited you to see if in fact my edits still reflected the basic gist of what you added, NOT an invitation to be attacked. For future reference, if you want to see how a proper horse breed article should look, please look at Thoroughbred, which is the one horse breed article so far to be granted Featured Article status. (And I was a member of the team that got it there, by the way). There are a few other high-quality breed articles with Good Article status that may also serve as models for your editing, including Haflinger, Appaloosa and Arabian horse. Hope this clarifies matters. Montanabw^(talk) 07:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ThW5. Montanabw is the subject of a Wikiquette alert (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Montanabw). There, she pretends not to understand why her behavior is not acceptable, yet here she is giving you the "what for". Isn't that interesting? --Una Smith (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]