User talk:Bob Castle/archive9

Userpage | Talk page | Talk page archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | Sandbox | New comment

Your arbitrary removal

Hello Bob Castle, May I ask why you removed an entire paragraph from the Viviane Reding page, where proper wiki etiquette as I understand would be to flag and wait? (I illustrated for your perspective on another page.) Perhaps you can explain what specific part(s) of the paragraph strikes you as factually wrong?Truth or consequences-2 (talk)

"I removed it because it's a controversial issue, and your edit was uncited - a massive list of "differences between Nazi attrocities and French policy" is unneccesary for her article, which is already verging on giving undue weight to the issue. BLP rules state any controversial passage should be referenced, and the tone of the paragraph appeared to lack neutrality. Bob talk 19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)".[reply]

Dear Bob, I agree that there is controversy involved, in that the very point of Mrs Reding may have been to cause controversy. Otherwise it is hard to see why she made her statement in these terms. But, what is controversial about the facts listed in the paragraph you excised? I am puzzled in that your editing appears to imply that you agree with the parallel as made by Mrs Reding, and that you deem the facts in the paragraph you removed likely wrong. The bottom line, so far, is that Mrs Reding recanted on the very basis that the parallel she drew was wrong. I do not see where else the factual wrongfulness of her initial comparison - again, as described within wikipedia, and separately from ancillary reactions thereto - is clearly laid out in the article. The facts in the paragraph were relevant to understanding why Reding's statement was both controversial and ultimately recanted, which is the point of the section.Truth or consequences-2 (talk)

Thanks for the reply. What I read from it is that you think she was wrong to make the WWII comparison, and are therefore using the section to point out any exaggerations in her initial statement. To be neutral it should simply say "she said this", and "the president said something else in response". If she has recanted the accusation, then that should speak for itself. Of course, I imagine this is perhaps a more emotive issue in France than in the UK, where I'm writing. Bob talk 20:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bob, thanks for the reply. I am not sure where you are getting your inferences from. (1) As a matter of background, I did not initiate the paragraph in question, though I did contribute to it on a factual basis. (2) The paragraph contained appropriate context to Mrs Reding's statement and reactions thereto, including but not limited to the recanting. Of course, it could have been fruitfully edited and possibly moved, but then again the deletion makes this that much harder now. (3) Your attribution of my opinion is odd, but it does not change the facts of the paragraph. To follow your logic, one would suppose that suppressing some or all of these facts is indicative of someone swayed by support for Mrs Reding's first statement. Prima facie, prima facie I guess. (4) I suppose you might freely imagine about the relative emotiveness of those in France vs. in the UK in a general sense, though I hardly see why this would qualify one editor versus another. If you mean this at the editor level, I shudder to think of the implications of your reasoning as its generalization invites systematic discrimination against some of the most qualified editors on most any topic. Then again, the specific comparison you made is irrelevant to this two-editor talk anyway. (5) Regardless, I am grateful for the ex post clarification of your reasoning. I wish a more constructive approach had been taken, as I take BLP policy to allow in this case; but, barring that, I wish a less selective justification had been laid out in the first place. If I am wrong on that, do educate me.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

French roma repatriation

Hello. I do think you were quick to revert me but please have a closer look, for a start those places are hundreds of km from each other.--Alcea setosa (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE BBC "Loire Valley town of Saint Aignan" per the article in you initial response--Alcea setosa (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE. BBC "Loir-et-Cher region" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10679297 Alcea setosa (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:UK Film Council.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UK Film Council.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Old Sarum Cathedral

On 21 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Old Sarum Cathedral, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Bob Castle's Day!

User:Bob Castle has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Bob Castle's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Bob Castle!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dad's Army

Hi Bob,

Happy belated Bob Castle's Day! As per your suggestion, I have looked through the remaining Dad's Army character articles and have suggested that five be merged into the list. I started the discussion here; your input would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for merging some of the individual character articles into the list. Your last edit summary stated your intention to merge the others as well. Are you still planning on doing so or would you mind if I stepped in?

Neelix (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob,

Agreed; Jones has been kept separate. I have merged the remaining two and have cleaned up the list and navbox a little. It has been good working with you.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard

Can I ask why this page was merged please? I thought is was a good page.Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the TV series, radio series and film of Dad's Army there was a lot of names in the platoon and so far this is up the whole TV series and film. So far the stage show and radio series is not on the list.

list removed from talk page

This is how I see the format of the minor characters in the platoon. I don't know any of the characters from the radio series or the stage show (1975-76) though. They could be different.Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from [[Norman Wisdom

Why did you remove valid information from this article? Self referential is only correct if I cite Wiki as a source. Nasnema Chat 20:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old St Paul's Cathedral

I noticed your comments on the FAC for this article. I hope that I was not among those that drove you away from this FAC, and if I was then I apologize, as that was not my intention. FAC is, to some extent, about consistency, both with itself and with things like the Manual of Style. I would urge you not to let your dissatisfaction with this review discourage you - it is a good article, even if it's not (yet) an FA. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Bob Castle, I hope you are doing well. :) Just a heads up, I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1. By the way, I agree with the cite formatting changes you made there - just unfortunately seems I am being unduly singled out for commenting in support of edits I did not initially make myself. Quite odd. Anyways, thank you for your efforts to make quality improvements to FAs at Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old St Paul's Cathedral

Hi Bob, I went to look at this FAC today hoping to support it, and saw it had been archived with no comments since the 14th (that I could see). I just want to make sure you intend to bring it back at some point, because it was a very nice article and I really enjoyed reading it. The only issues I could see were formatting ones, easily fixed, so I hope you're not discouraged. Best, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi! I would like to thank you very much for your excellent article Sherlock Holmes Baffled. The article has been translated to polish by me and Magalia and today it became a featured article on polish Wikipedia. Regards, Awersowy (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject: North East England

Hey Bob. As the eldest active member listed in the North East England project, would you mind terribly assess the five requested pages for me? I'd be bold and do it myself, but I live in New Brunswick, Canada, and haven't the slightest about importance in North East England. :) Thanks! - Wmcduff (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, sir! Appreciate it! - Wmcduff (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Barker

Hi, you posted on the Ronnie Barker talkpage a few weeks back to praise the article. I just wanted to thank you for this, and also to ask if you'd be willing to help out with it. As I said on the talk page, with a little bit of work it would easily pass GAN now. However, my aim is to make it as comprehensive as possible, which means, at the very least, using all of the biographies. I'm only halfway through the Corbett book and so still have four others to go through. Given my fairly limited time, this will probably take forever. So, yeah, if you'd be willing to help out in any way it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Gran² 15:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job, thanks. My aim is to at least finish the Corbett book before a GAN. I've no doubt it would pass but I just want to complete one book for the sake of my own sanity. Gran² 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject North East: Sheriff Hill

Thanks for assessing my article 'Sheriff Hill'. I'll have a closer look at the amendments you suggest over the weekend, though you are right: for some reason there are two sets of co-ordinates showing (it isn't just your computer!) and I have no idea how to fix it... User: Meetthefeebles talk 10.30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the co-ordinate confusion- much appreciated! User: Meetthefeebles talk 10.30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne

Hey. I noticed you had a weak oppose for my article to be on the main page. I respect your decision. However, can you please tell me why my feature article of three years no longer seems to be of FA standard? I've been waiting a while for this one, so if you have any suggestions I"ll be greatful. Thanks mate. --Paaerduag (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the fair use images issues. To be honest, there were very few sources to work with so I pretty much used whatever I could find and incorporated it into the article if I could. So I don't think I'd be able to significantly improve the article over how it is now, especially since three and a half years have passed. I was wondering if, even if you don't consider it a good enough article to support, if you wouldn't mind reconsidering your "weak oppose" decision? Of course if you decide to remain with this decision I respect it totally, but currently voting seems to be tied at 4-4, and I'm anxious to see the tie be broken :P Whatever your decision, thanks for taking the time to actually look over the article objectively. --Paaerduag (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]