User talk:Canterbury Tail

Note for all users I shall make any replies to comments on my talk page here on my talk page. I feel this allows everyone to see a consistent conversation rather than one spread across multiple pages. Please make new comments at bottom of page.

Archive 1 - Beginning to September 2006

Archive 2 - September 2006 to 10 January 2007

Archive 3 - 11 January 2007 to 25 April 2007

Archive 4 - 26 April to 2 July 2007

Archive 5 - 3 July 2007 - 30 October 2007

Archive 6 - 31 October 2007 - 15 March 2008

Archive 7 - 16 March 2008 - 31 August 2008

Archive 8 - 1 September 2008 - 26 January 2009

Archive 9 - 27 January 2009 - 13 September 2009

Archive 10 - 14 September 2009 - 21 January 2010

3RR warning

Um... why did you give me a 3RR warning. I didn't do anything wrong. I noticed that someone used the term Premier instead of Prime Minister on the Prime Minister of Canada page and that user wanted to discuss it so we did and I asked if the discussion was over and GoodDay said it is so I can change it, which I did. You have no right to give me that warning. I got it for no reason.

174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind what I said. I understand what happened now. Although I didn't do anything bad I reverted too much. I get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Trying to find out how iPod and Pepsi have pages but the one I posted for Cameo gets deleted. Please tell me what I'm doing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YukonGroup (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're posting copyrighted information and putting up marketing speak to promote your product. Please read WP:COI, WP:Advert and WP:Copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to submit this article on this cool tool, so please help me understand how to do this correctly. I still don't see what the difference in my article is from those of iphone and mac... —Preceding unsigned comment added by YukonGroup (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way for you to look over something before I actually post it to be sure that it won't just get deleted?--YukonGroup (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Owen Astrachan

I've just declined a speedy deletion tag you placed on this article on the basis that, as near as I can tell, this individual meets WP:PROFESSOR by virtue of his Deanship (or at least that notability is asserted by virtue of the Deanship). I apologize for substituting my judgment for yours in what was essentially a judgment call. However, I wanted to bring it to your attention in case you believe I've made a mistake or misinterpreted WP:PROFESSOR, which is entirely possible; you may wish to take this to PROD or AfD. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, that's why I tagged it rather than deleting it outright. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And, frankly, I'm not 100% sure I got WP:PROFESSOR right, which is why I went into detail. Your greater experience will perhaps allow you to make a more closely reasoned decision. Thanks for giving this your consideration. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulster

I am curious as to why you continue to try and make the Ulster early history article about Protestants Vs Catholics? The fact of the matter is that my edits are factual and I support them with references whereas you go round with a religious agenda, the fact that William of Orange had forces who flew a Papal banner is very important for readers of the article as it highlights the false and sectarian nature of the Orange order. Just look at the bias Presbyterians came to identify more with the State and with their Anglican neighbours, who perceived them as the lesser of two evils. There is no reference of that being the case nor is it fair to claim the natives were evil. I question your motives but I am outstretching a hand of good faith in the hopes you will see that you are biased and as this is an Encyclopedia not your ficticious diary you must remove that error. (Boundarylayer (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

You are changing the name of the county to a name that is incorrect. I.e. County Londonderry to County Derry. As a result it is revered. Also be aware of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, WP:NPOV. Canterbury Tail talk 14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the anally retentive Derry/Londonderry naming dispute, do you not think the early history section of the Ulster page is overtly sectarian and incorrect? I have added references to help make the section reflect the reality of events more closely but you have reverted the changes, why? I believe it is you who should be aware of, not only author neutrality, but also the real history of the province. I am going to revert the section back to how it was after I editted it, and I'll scan through the section to see if I used Derry instead of Londonderry, and if so, I'll change it to Londonderry. If I miss any, feel free to change it to Londonderry. However I severely doubt this will appease you, Do you not think the data I added is important? Boundarylayer (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the rest of your edits it seems I was hasty in reverting all of them. From a first glance it seemed like you'd just deleted the County Londonderry items and comments. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I reverted your most recent edit. You didn't tone down rhetoric, you inflamed it with very point of view opinions and conjecture. You took a neutrally worded section and made it blatantly anti-British in sentiment and changed the tone to be completely unencyclopaedic. If you wish to make such changes again, discuss them on the talk page first under the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. Canterbury Tail talk 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrally worded are you trying to be humourous? how was the original in any way factual or neutral, it set out to pit Protestants vs Catholics in a contrived fictitious manner. I contest that my edits were blatantly anti-british, in no part of my edit did I mention that Britain was evil nor did I even infer that, contrast this with the original, with it's obvious anti Irish sentiment as noted by the text I highlighted in Bold above last week. I also contest that my edit was unencyclopedic, as the last time I checked Wikipedia puts a lot of weight on including references, and since I used both internal and external references that mutes your point.

I did have a read of the Bold, Revert, Discuss process and I feel that it has, for the most part, an unbiased mediating philosophy. One of the suggestions was that when a dispute is in process, conflicting parties should make compromises. Have a look at the new edit of the early history section,(which I am about to edit) I hope you see that my edit reflects the truth far more than both my previous edit and the original. Of note is that in the Bold, Revert, Discuss process the use of automated or semi-automated tools is prohibited during a content dispute. Editors must not use tools such as Twinkle, Huggle or Rollback when in a content dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.79.224 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have used no rollback tools in this content dispute whatsoever. I have never used Twinkle or Huggle in my life, and rollback was not used on this article. Please discuss the edits on the appropriate talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it but I'm still suspicious, well like I said, I editted the article and I beefed up the references in the section under discussion. I would like your opinion on the changes, I hope you note that the Catholic Protestant sectarian rhetoric has been removed, I think the words Catholic only appear once or twice now, likewise with the word Protestant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I rolled back it would not allow me to enter text in the edit comments. And Twinkle and Huggle I believe say in the edit comment the tool name. Assume good faith.

For the edits they look much better this time yes. I agree the protestant/catholic thing was overdone..Canterbury Tail talk 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

City of Derry Airport

Alas, yet an other unregistered user is abusing the City of Derry Airport page again. If you look at the edit history you'll see that Jasepl and I have been trying to stop an unregistered user from making unreferenced edits regarding imaginary new flights soon to be announced by Aer Arann. It's just developed into edit warring. Would it be possible for you to protect the page again? Thanks, Regards --NorthernCounties (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not enough to do anything about it. Not everything has to be referenced. If it goes in again, put a fact tag beside it asking for a reference. If not supplied in a week or two then remove it as unreferenced. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Random IP comment

i disagree with your edits, what has happened is that gaelic names have been put into scottish town names that have no association with gaelic. i'm guessing that you are from canada, i'm not reading all that stuff on your homepage, you should get out more. ok so canada, Ottawa is the capital, and french is an offical lanuage of canada, but there is no "english" and "french" name for the city, just what the locals call it, this should be the same for the scottish towns. there are less than 5,000 people in scotland who can speak gaelic and its only in the north, let all towns are getting these silly gaelic names stuck on them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.236.201 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree all you like. You're deleting content just because you don't like it, and Scottish names have a Gaelic name as well and is an agreed standard. Also why do you think I'm from Canada? Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

absolutely and could I add that while the population of gaelic speakers in scotland is not very large it's far more than the 5000 you suggest! also slightly ironic how you wrote edit summaries about "no gaelic please we are scots" given the original (though not current) meaning of the term! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.53.145 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

External Link removal

Could you please explain why you removed the AROTW link I added to the Schiphol Airport page, which links to an IATA-sponsored site that provides air-rail connection information about the specific airport in question? If I have broken edit rules please let me know what they are, but as far as I can see, this is a useful and relevant additional resource, which would be impractical to insert into the article itself.

I did amend about a dozen airport entries to add their respective links to this resource because I found it very useful and relevant and thought others would find it useful too. All I can think of is that somehow my amendments have been incorrectly interpreted as spam because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.219.22 (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, it's not here to tell people how they can travel to and from an airport. It is an encyclopaedia. See WP:EL. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply and my apologies for any misunderstanding of the external link rules. I understand the distinction and how you arrived at the "travel guide" interpretation of my amendments.

However, the link in question also includes relevant contact details for the various rail operators (which is not covered by the official airport site page link) who are connected to the airport in question. Is this information not of encyclopedic value to the article in question? especially if it can be provided in a single link, instead of separate links for each rail operator running from the airport.

If this is not the case, is the correct "Wiki" method of addressing this cross-linking/reference issue, to instead create cross-links between the respective airport article and their related rail operator articles, in order to achieve the same result from a knowledge perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.219.22 (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CthulhuTech

In any case, CthulhuTech should be mentioned (and linked) in the Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) article. Kintaro (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But it's not connected. Add it as a see also perhaps, but it doesn't deserve any actual article space. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I mentioned then CthulhuTech in the "See also" section, as you suggested. Kintaro (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly block..

IrishForever Or DEATH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious Historian19 sockpuppet? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why he keeps coming back here. His socks are always pretty blatant. Anyway, done. Well spotted. Canterbury Tail talk 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since you recognised him editing as an IP on some of the same articles the day before, I hoped it would be quicker than waiting for SPI. O Fenian (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look

At the current discussion going on on my talk page? Two users are Edit Warring at Adi Da, I have warned them.... and neither believe that they have done anything wrong and are pointing fingers at each other. See User_talk:Dusti#I_have_not_reverted_anything Thank you, Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking at Highyack07's userpage. That was a scary page and even made me feel delusional. Morenooso (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Highyack07 is back with a userpage created by George Sterner. George Sterner's userpage recreate a different flavor of Highyack07's. Morenooso (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Runescape_Lords_Conquest

I hope now that i have reviewed the following guidelines about notability that you would now freely consider my origional request and tell me if it would be good enough to be put up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest

BertramIT (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Runescape_Lords_Conquest

How about now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest BertramIT (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)