User talk:Amisom

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with Granita (restaurant), have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Calabe1992 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Postcodes in the United Kingdom

When you reverted the citation that I added to support the text you removed from Postcodes in the United Kingdom#Special postcodes, your edit summary stated: "cite DOES NOT SAY that postcodess are desined to be about constituion".

The relevant article text stated: "Britain's constitutional hierarchy is unofficially reflected in the ordering of the following three postcodes:"

Being "reflected" in the postcodes is not the same as the postcodes being "designed" for them – readers can choose to believe that it is a coincidence if they wish, though I think it a ridiculously unlikely coincidence (0AA, 1AA and 2AA are three out of at least 4,000 potential postcodes in the SW1 postcode district).

But either way, the article text informs readers while leaving them to draw their own conclusions as to the intention. Even if it were a coincidence, the symmetry is still a fact, and in many ways these are the three most notable addresses in the UK. So, why delete notable factual information?

— Richardguk (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This page WIKIPEDIA:Synthesis says what you are doing is not aloud. The cite has to say what you say..

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and for the useful guidance link. I agree that it would be wrong to link facts together tendentiously, though the connection does not seem to me a matter of opinion or reasonable dispute. But given your concern, I agree that a reference drawing attention to the hierarchy would be helpful. How about replacing the Cabinet Manual ref with the following {{Cite news}} reference to make the connection explicitly?

• "Summerley, Victoria (24 May 2006). "Town Life". The Independent. London. Retrieved 15 February 2012."

i.e. "...one could argue that there is some evidence of forelock-tugging in the allocation of some postcodes. Buckingham Palace, for example, is SW1A 1AA while 10 Downing Street is merely SW1A 2AA. (The House of Commons, though, is SW1 0AA – perhaps because it's full of zeros.)"

— Richardguk (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

THat article in the independent looks like its synthesiss too. Guesswork "one could argue that there is some evidence..." and its jokey "perhaps because it's full of zeros" and it doesnt mention a hirarchy of constituiton.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS prohibits synthesis by wiki editors, not the reporting of synthesis by reliable sources! In other words, we are here to summarise objectively what experts and influential sources do and think, so long as we don't distort that into what we ourselves think. We are not here merely to list facts without any context. So you are overstating your original point. After all, when theoretical physicists make educated guesses about how the universe works, we record it, and rightly so.

I agree with you that the Independent article is archly written in places, but that does not necessarily invalidate the observations it makes. Indeed, since it is drawing attention to a trite correlation, it's unsurprising that the author felt no need to argue her case in depth.

Incidentally, you deleted the above disputed content three times without discussing the matter beyond your edit summaries (which, as you've seen, confused me as to the exact grounds for your deletion). I strongly encourage you to raise issues on user or article talk pages if good-faith editors do not accept your changes the first time: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. It's easier to make your case and re-establish consensus if you demonstrate your reasonableness than through persistence alone! And, even on your own assertions, you had no grounds for deleting the postcodes themselves (as distinct from the disputed interpretation of their significance), still less for doing so three times.

— Richardguk (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Proprietor, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. WaggersTALK 11:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

IT WAS NOT VANDALISM!

August 2012

Hello, I'm Barryob. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Nicola Sturgeon that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please read http://www.snp.org/people/nicola-sturgeon before you change it to Deputy again Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 04:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Barryob. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Nicola Sturgeon because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ECHR

Sorry. I accidentally reverted this edit you made to the European Convention on Human Rights. I appear to have thought you added the text you actually deleted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:Joker

One source is usually enough for a small sentence, but in the case of your original edit, it was seemed to be an unreliable source. That's the point. Now, I am 100% open to being wrong about that source being unreliable in the context of this article, but in the second case, you added 8 sources for 1 sentence. I left two in, one from Money and one from The Times of Israel, which is over-citing. We don't need more than 2 references for 1 sentence. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Soulbust (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)