User talk:AlexWilkes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:18, 10 August 2006

Alex, PLEASE take note of the messages on your talk page. New messages are at the bottom of the page Oldelpaso 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello AlexWilkes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hu 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United

I reverted your last edit to Manchester United F.C., thought it'd be only polite to tell you. I put my reasons for doing so on the article's talk page. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

xxx's life in the Premiership

Please consider merging your recent edits to many Premiership football club articles to what already exists in those articles. Your addition of the club's history in the Premiership often repeats what others have already included, and thus reduces that article's quality. In addition, please stop adding your speculation as to each team's chances of a trophy or their possible league position - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Qwghlm 17:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP adding extra information into football club's articles about their Premiership experiences. In nearly all cases their history in the Premiership is already documented and you are only duplicating what is in the article already - only your version is separate and unwikified. You are severely reducing the quality of these articles. Please consider adding to and improving what already exists in each article rather than dumping text in addditionally without any thought. Qwghlm 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you re-adding this content again. Your "life in the Premiership" additions were merged into the main History sections of the articles concerned several weeks ago. Please stop adding them in again - all the relevant information is already there and all you're doing is adding unnecessary repetition and creating extra work for other editors to remove your work. Qwghlm 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding duplicate information and speculative remarks to new X in the Premiership sections in football club articles. Consider adding any additional information into the History section instead. Oldelpaso 21:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your edit to Bolton Wanderers F.C. as it repeated an existing section. Please consider whether information is already included in an article before adding it. Oldelpaso 19:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa

Alex,

I have deleted your recent entries of 'Great Managers' and 'Great Players' - I am afraid they are just not appropriate. There is alredy a notable players section and a list of Aston Villa managers and your comments are far too opinionated for an wikipedia article.

I would also reiterate the remarks of previous users regarding your slapdash treatment of Premiership football articles. PLEASE STOP DOING THIS!

User:Villafanuk, 10 Feb 2006

Alex, I have done likewise for the Everton F.C. article. The reasoning mirrors that of Villafanuk precisely. Veila 00:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the Portsmouth F.C. article. Grunners 00:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Newcastle United F.C. Mark272 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Arsenal F.C.. --Pkchan 03:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now likewise for Birmingham, Blackburn, Chelsea, Fulham, Manchester City, Middlesborough, Newcastle United, West Bromwich Albion, West Ham United and, of course, Wigan Athletic. Aside from the problems of the information not being well integrated into the articles and often finding itself duplicating existing prose, I have to ask, where did the text come from? Specifically, what is the copyright status of it? An editor has worked your information into the Sunderland article and that's great, as long as it's legal. Veila 11:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't revert Newcastle United, somebody else beat me to it! Veila 11:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XXXX-XX in English football

Hi Alex. Good job on covering the seasons of English football, but please use the format '1983-84 in English football' rather than just '1983-84'. Also, it would be good if you wikified. Eixo 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say the same thing. I have just moved 1979-80 to 1979-80 in English football for you, and will nominate the redirect (which is too unspecific; a page with title "1979-80" could talk about 1979-80 in anything) for deletion. Please use more specific names, and in this case, the names used on Football in England look best. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I moved all the others. Kusma (討論) 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm about to move even more. Please could you stop creating your articles under these titles, and use 'xxxx-xx in English football' as requested? -- Mithent 14:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say the same thing. Note that articles such as 1993-94 in English football already existed - please add your information to these, instead of creating new articles. JPD (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I met that problem when I tried to move, yes.) -- Mithent 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What they said! The articles are good, but an article called "1993-94" is not very intuitive, and I honestly couldn't tell what sport it was. Please create them with descriptive titles like 1993-94 in English football. Unfortunately I see there is already a page by this title, and without researching the sports involved I can't tell what the difference between 1993-94 and 1993-94 in English football is. If they are about the same season, they should be merged; if they are different leagues, the titles should reflect that. Thanks. bikeable (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment as to 1994-95, please refrain from continuing to use these vague article titles. There are pre-existing articles addressing these subjects. You should edit pre-existing articles rather than creating duplicative ones. Thank you for your contributions. Accurizer 14:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several of your pages have ended up on the Dead End Pages. Could I bother you to please go in and wikify these articles to get them off of the Dead End Pages. Thanks! James084 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1992-93

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article 1992-93, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:1992-93. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. James084 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1993-94

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article 1993-94, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:1993-94. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. James084 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please wikify your additions

Your additions to Wikipedia's existing articles are welcome, but please read the guide to editing pages, especially the bit about wikilinking. Please learn how to wikify (i.e. create links) with your content. At the moment you are destroying others' valuable work by replacing well-formatted wikified text with your own non-wikified rewording. Don't just rewrite things for the sake of it, but help build on others' work and improve it. Thank you. Qwghlm 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top-level headings

Hello AlexWilkes. Thank-you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I notice you have been creating some football-related articles, for example 1976-77 in English football.

In those articles, you have been using headers which are surrounded by single equals signs, for example:

= First Division =

This practice is not normally followed; rather it is usual to introduce your highest-level sections using two equals signs, for example:

== First Division ==

See Wikipedia:Section#Creation of sections which in particular says:

Please do not use only one equals sign on a side (=text here=); this causes a title the size of the page name; which is taken care of automatically.

Thanks, Duckbill 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Simple and Friends

Hi Alex, you may want to add a stub tag to the articles you're adding. At present they are likely too short with no indication of why they are important. Adding a stub tag may convince other editors to leave them around, and will also encourage you and others to expand them.

Chelsea F.C.

I've reverted your changes to the Chelsea F.C. page. I think so many sub-sections, including one for every Premiership season when there's only a couple of sentences of content, is a bit much. Regards. SteveO 21:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"xxx in the Premiership" (again)

I see you're making this kind of edit again; again I must ask you: please don't just tack it on to the end of existing content as you did with History of Arsenal F.C. - there was an already extensive account of the period between 1993 and the present day, and you just wasted your time duplicating it. I note that you have at least made the effort with some other club article to integrate your additions with the existing text, which is an encouraging sign.

Also, please be more sensible with headings (it is not necessary to give every season its own subsection), and keep heading titles neutral and judgement-free (e.g. you should not label seasons as "disappointing" or "unremarkable"). Additionally, please avoid speculation in articles (e.g. a team's chances in Europe this season) - you should know by now that Wikipedia discourages such behaviour.

I really am getting sick of you making the same mistakes again and again despite much polite advice from other Wikipedians on how to do things correctly. Please take on the advice you receive here - some of your edits are useful but a lot are causing headaches and adding extra workload for other users. Qwghlm 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of each team in each season

Thanks for your contributions, but they lean on POV heavily :D Will (^E_@) T 20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As other users have noted, please refrain from splitting articles up into small subsections and inserting speculative comments or opinions. Oldelpaso 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2000-01 in English football

Please don't replace whole sections of wikified text with unwikified text, as you did with 2000-01 in English football. It just creates more work for other people and can be very annoying. SteveO 18:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Brentford F.C.. You replaced the wikified "1990 to present" section with an unwikified one which contained more or less the same information. SteveO 19:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that you were inclined to do the same as stated above for many other football articles, including 2001-02 in English football - 2004-05 in English football. Please don't. All of the subheaders you are adding brings the quality of the article down, and, in fact, you've changed the information so there's considerably less than there was before, and of less quality. Mark272 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative comments

I have reverted your changes to Manchester City F.C. As mentioned before, please do not put speculative comments about what might happen in future into articles. Again, please take note of the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the section Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks. Oldelpaso 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe

Hi, I've reverted your change to The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe - the article does have a tendancy to get overwhelmed by the synopsis, but I'm happy to discuss on its talk page. All the best,

Tomandlu 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Please wikify your contributions to wikipedia please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark272 (talk • contribs) .

Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions do not assert the notability of their subjects and have been reverted or removed. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich City F.C., Halifax Town A.F.C. and Swansea_City_A.F.C.

Hi. I'm puzzled by your recent contribution. Did you think that material was missing or do you think it's all essential "summary" information that should be seen without needing to scroll down? --Dweller 10:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Halifax Town. BlueValour 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Swansea City - your edit was covered in its entirety elsewhere on the page. --Stevecov 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image license concerns

License tagging for Image:CNV00006.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CNV00006.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:CNV00020.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:CNV00020.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

cohesion 07:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:CNV00001.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CNV00001.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:CNV00001.JPG|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

File:CNV00021.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CNV00021.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:CNV00021.JPG|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

File:CNV00023.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CNV00023.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:CNV00023.JPG|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

File:CNV00035.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CNV00035.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:CNV00035.JPG|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

Jon Turley

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Adolphus79 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich City again

You have reposted your edit to the Norwich City page and his has been reverted again.

All the information you post here, as with all the other football clubs' pages, is already covered lower in the article.

Please stop doing this. --Dweller 16:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive headings

Please don't use excessive headings. Mark272 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do not insert a section header for every paragraph, as you did with Shaun Wright-Phillips. And please read your talk page, ignoring talk page messages is poor etiquette, and leads to frustration for other users. Oldelpaso 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with this, the excessive headings you've been adding make Wikipedia look like a tabloid newspaper at times, please stop it, they only get reverted. Markspearce 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE stop inserting subheadings for every paragraph. The Manual of Style specifically states "Avoid overuse of subheadings". Your edits are creating a lot of work for other editors. As the very least, please discuss changes before making them. Oldelpaso 10:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with all the above contributors. Please stop adding so many subheadings and splitting articles into one-paragraph sections. By separating out related paragraphs into different sections, it makes a long article hard to read and damages the flow of the prose. In addition, your section titles are often of a POV and unencylopaedic tone, misusing simplistic terms such as "glory" and "disappointment". Please read the Manual of Style and other relevant policies - you have had enough objections here to indicate that your contributions are not helpful. Qwghlm 11:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear he doesn't read this page, or any Talk page for that matter. I'll try and find a creative way to get his attention. --Dweller 11:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to keep checking his contributions in the meantime so that no obscure article slips away with excessive headers. Mark272 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP BEFORE I GO CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Ignoring the messages here is not a way to win friends and influence people. --Dweller 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders articles

Please stop splitting these articles into one-paragraph sections, it's not needed and looks awful! Trampikey ^{(talk to me)}^(contribs) 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United Treble

I've reverted the edits you've made to the article on Manchester United's treble winning season. The edits are completely pointless. They are supposed to be divided by trophy, therefore the section about the FA Cup should just be called that, not "Triumph in the cup" or whatever you put. Keep things short and concise. Also, your title of "United beat Arsenal to the title" is incredibely POV. PLEASE TAKE NOTE! hedpeguyuk 17 July 2006, 21:03 (UTC)

Also, please wikify your entries and when creating articles make a better effort with them (ie. include nationality of person and WIKIFY). As I know the guy isn't going to read this can we not ban him? He's doing more harm than good. hedpeguyuk 17 July 2006, 21:30 (UTC)

Now he's at it again! This time with Manchester United 1999-present editing large amounts of text, often making poor quality edits with colloquial language and adding a stupid number of headings. Please STOP IT. hedpeguyuk 17 July 2006, 21:35 (UTC)

It's been going on quite a while, as you can see. But is this actually an offence that one can be banned for? Mark272 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This style was also done to many of the "XXXX-XX in English football" articles and several "FA Premier League XXXX-XX" articles. Mark272 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP! Hammertime!

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

Thanks for trying to add in information to Dormston School though! --mboverload @ 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of past EastEnders cast members by year of exit

I don't know if you're going to read this, but I've reverted your edits to the above article. Please can you discuss changes on the talk page before making changes. Thank you. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress?

Alex, you have deleted the message left on your userpage to alert you to the numerous messages herein.

Hopefully, this also means that you have read the messages which users have left for many months. Most of these are very constructive and suggest how you could make worthwhile edits to Wikipedia. I hope you have found them useful and that more of your edits will stay in future. - Stevecov 20:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's taken any notice, he's been adding excessive headings again today, since removing the message from his user page. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers at Dormston School in Sedgley

Teachers at Dormston School in Sedgley are not notable. Please refrain from creating new articles about them. Thank you. Jon513 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating these articles, or you will be blocked. Wafulz 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, just STOP!!!!

Every single article you're creating for your schoolteachers is going to be deleted. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Fan-1967 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jon513 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

teachers

please stop creating articles even after beeing warned, youve made over 10 article now about teachers Thatperson

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against vandalism. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

While all of the articles you have recently created have been deleted I still think that I should point out to you that beside not being notable they have also been incorrectly named. Titles (such as Mr and Mrs), according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), should not be in the title. Please stop creating these articles. Jon513 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make legal threats against other users, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. HawkerTyphoon 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Trying to help

Alex, you clearly have a lot to offer Wikipedia, but you're frustrated by the "rules".

Can I suggest you chat with me on my talk page (User_talk:Dweller)?

I think it would be a shame if someone got you blocked from Wikipedia.

Sorry for posting here, but it's very difficult to get your attention.

--Dweller 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.

Hi Alex, I've reverted what I saw as a [very strange] addition to this article. I'm happy for you to show I'm wrong but it did not look like a positive addition to the article - Peripitus (Talk) 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellowes Hall School

Please stop persistently inserting the same incorrect information into the Ellowes Hall School article when people have asked you to stop several times. The school is located in Gornal, which is in Dudley, and NOT in Sedgley as you keep repeating. Thank you.

@@ Line 283: / Line 283: @@
 Hi Alex, I've reverted what I saw as a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolverhampton_Wanderers_F.C.&diff=68704493&oldid=68676462 very strange]] addition to this article. I'm happy for you to show I'm wrong but it did not look like a positive addition to the article - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
+==Ellowes Hall School==
+Please stop persistently inserting the same incorrect information into the [[Ellowes Hall School]] article when people have asked you to stop several times. The school is located in Gornal, which is in Dudley, and NOT in Sedgley as you keep repeating. Thank you.