User talk:Cosmopolitancats

Altrincham and the policies

Your interpretation of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) is not correct. It is actually a policy of wikipedia and not a guideline. I'm not a sole enforcer of the conventions by a long way (!), infact there is an overwhelming majority of editors who conform to them (believe me!). There is also a dedicated team of editors who are specialists in the field of local government and human geography, who have all the primary sources and literature who helped formulate the conventions; these senior editors are still active. With regards to using local convention for counties, this is an old arguement has been overturned in the past as a (somewhat regressive) CountyWatch/POV effort to circumvent the rules, and I would not encourage that approach.

Also, your assertions and behaviour is somewhat diminuative of myself on the talk page, and you appear to be taking this rather personally; I wouldn't encourage that further. I just take an interest in the article as I'm designated to improve article content for the Greater Manchester area, and my retorts on the talk page serve to highlight where editors may be going off-track.

I would encourage you re-read the policies on contributing to wikipedia, particularly WP:V - "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." - but also WP:CITE, WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:EQ. Again, it is not for me to provide a source saying that the former postal counties are not used by large numbers of people in Altrincham, but rather on the editor wishing to include that they are used (despite this demonstrating that the local population would be wholly wrong to do so).

I trust this clears a few things up. Should it not, I'm quite happy to bring this attention to the wider editing community, and/or administration, as the talk page is tantamount to trolling. Jhamez84 13:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe my interpretation was correct - we disagree on this matter. I note that the naming convention article has been changed since I last commented. Please identify how I contact the senior editors who are specialists in this field as I'd like to discuss certain matters direct with them. Cosmopolitancats 12:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RRJ

Case closed. Debate added to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. My condolences. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Apolgies in both the late reply and the accusation. There was evidence of sockpuppets and single purpose accounts for means of aggrivating the situation on the Altrincham talk page and to cause disruption (all of those I submitted, bar yourself!).

I requested the investigation into all the accounts involved at a quick glance and was not a personal move against you by any means.

It seems the real sockpuppets have since dissipated and I'm now prepared to contribute again to the encyclopedia. Given the disruption, I felt it appropriate to ask for investigation.

However, again, please accept my apologies. Jhamez84 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd very much prefer it if you had exercised due diligence prior to making accusations rather than apologies after the event. As the investigator easily established there was clearly no case to answer given my past record of contributions. I trust the approach you adopted will not happen again.

You have also failed to apologise for your failure to notify me of what you were doing, when you made the accusation of sock puppetry. Cosmopolitancats 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It was posted to your userpage for your attention. If it wasn't, then why did you know about it at all? - so no apology should be granted for this as I followed convention for instigating investigations. This matter happened months ago, can't you drop it? And no, for your information (again) an investigator found evidence of single purpose accounts, so I was right to ask for an investigation, but wrong to include this account (I posted ONE wrong account name which I apologised for and you were vindicated, so what's the problem? I don't have the editting functions of an administrator and can't see IP logs for accounts and such!!!!!) If you have a problem with me as a contributor then either report me for whatever you think I'm doing (again), or kindly drop this matter.

You may also be interested that your efforts on Greater Manchester were strongly and swiftly opposed by five impartial editors. It would've been nice if you had exercised due diligence prior to butchering the article and formatting talk pages like articles, but I don't ask for an apology; I accept mistakes happen, and just get on with improving the encyclopedia. Jhamez84 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hale

Thanks for your help on the Hale article, admittedly it did need a clean up. Nev1 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Greater Manchester and unusual edits

I have recently looked at a number of edit histories for various articles with strange formatting styles, and found you have made massive sweeping changes, most of which were against policy, consensus, and in some cases used bizarre presentation styles.

I must echo the sentiments of a number of users on the Greater Manchester talk page where you decided the county no longer exists and thus distorted the article (dispite all the references which prove the contrary!) towards this conjecture. I must add that I personally find it strange that you assert you are a local government specialist and then contribute this way - Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county, not a conurbation.

Furthermore, please (please), do not reformat another talk page as you did to Altrincham! It is not convention to do this, and is not helpful to the wider editting community - (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). If a page is too long, then please archive the material, not format it like an article!

Please understand I am not persecuting you, but trying to highlight problems that may generate angst from other edittors. It may be helpful to revisit the introduction guidlines. Jhamez84 13:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It would very easy to interpret it as persecution. The reformatting of the talk pages was devised by me to attract more contributions which would help the page move forward; reduce editing time and generally avoid the complete shambles that existed on the Altrincham discussion page previously. This reformatting proposal is currently under discussion within the geography pages. Until you completely reverted a well organised page which had not received any adverse comment from another editor who had reviewed it prior to you, was being tested as a way of better organising information and areas which needed to be developed. All of this was clearly signalled at the top of the page - which you chose to ignore and have now removed. I note that from your apology above that you sometimes glance and take action rather than read things properly. My revised format (and considerable additional input) had succeeded in attracting attracted additional information from others and was improving the article - while the previous format and interventions only succeeded in it having 'stalled' in terms of significant new input of the required standard and it being cited within wikipedia's 'lame editing wars'. I note that your edit - made shortly after your apology above - effectively removed all evidence of the ways in which I had improved the article within the discussion pages. I take a very dim view of this. Should you act in the same way again I will be seeking advice on appropriate action.

The Greater Manchester problem was caused by the complete confusion arising fromm the existence of two completely separate pages both relating to Greater Manchester which did not adequately refer to the other. Cosmopolitancats 09:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 09:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly well aware of the need to add a signature and I do - virtually all the time. However people as opposed to some of the rather more irritating bot machines occasionally forget to add it - and I'm one of those. Unfortunately since your bot does not allow for real people to edit and does not permit even a 10 seconds delay between my forgetting and the Hagerman bot signature appearing on the page, a person who immediately realises their omission is unable to go back and include their signature. I don't find the explanation for the lack of a delay convincing in relation to the vast majority of editors who forget - and then remember. I've not yet got to the totally fed up stage with this bot as I appreciate its benefits in relation to new members however I am seriously considering opting out of this bot - which the above message conveniently forgets to say is possible.

Interesting question - should a bot originated by somebody who no longer appears to be a wikipedia participant be allowed to continue........... Cosmopolitancats 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Social Skills

It has just come to my attention that there are certain editors on the wikipedia who have no social skills. Instead of collaborating with other editors they hector them, treat them like idiots, and put up stupid notices, then get the admins involved to harass editors who have written stuff in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Eventually these bureaucrats of the soul, (who pretend to themselves that they are enforcing wikipedia guidelines, but are really consumed with negativity and an intense joy of persecuting people) drive away lots of good faith editors who vow never to write for the wikipedia again. Colin4C 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of Stats

If you find a good answer to your question regarding copyright of stats can you point me at it. I am also interested. So far 'no copyright of facts' seems best answer I think. GameKeeper 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree with you that intuitively that's correct. Interstingly of course we don't actually get the raw data which is in fact 'the fact'. We get the processed version - which is, of course, where the interesting 'quirks' happen which happen to statistics. So I guess it will always be debateable whether a statistic is a fact! It's so much easier to go for the simple view and assume that they are.

I think the Crown's concern with copyright probably lies with any separation of numbers from caveats and explanations in the publication ie that stats might be presented elsewhere as if they are 'true' when in fact they need to be looked at in context. For example that changes may be attributable to when ways of counting or where you are counting change. Which is a perfectly sensible and rigorous view to take. Maybe not helpful to those needing to use them - but I guess that's where being intelligent in their use and proper attribution comes in. Cosmopolitancats 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)