Jump to content

User talk:Callanecc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.134.168.97 (talk) at 05:11, 24 June 2012 (→It's intentional: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
message Rupert'sscribe (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the Rakim Sanders page.Rupert'sscribe (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSI

I made these edits, mainly MoS (removing external links from text, refs following (added) punctuation, correct letter case, overlinking etc.) I think the text is OK now, I'll unprotect the article space. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Systems Insitute

Thanks for moving my article into the mainspace. My next question is if the article is in jeopardy of being deleted due to being categorized as a start page? If so...how long do I have to improve it?

Thanks

Rubenstein Neil (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed proposed deletion of List_of_La_Marzocco_products

My justification is in the talk page. Please respond there if you want any further discussion.

Thanks :) Hugzz (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcus Kretzer

Dear Callanecc,

thanks for reviewing my article about Marcus Kretzer. Concerning the section "Life and education": how can I prove that he studied in Cologne and Hamburg without showing his diplomas and exams? I would have to upload them to the Commons which is not possible because these documents are absolutely privat. Besides, Kretzer won't give me them. Is the link to the Hochschule für Musik und Theater Hamburg not sufficient enough? It shows that he studied there.

The Rachmaninoff.ogg is the recording of his conert exam in the Laeiszhalle - so this should be a reference.

The dedication of the composer Skubella could only be referenced by a link to the german editor's homepage. There http://www.ffmusicians.com/mazurka_1587.html one can see the music sheet including the dedication, but this is a commercial site.

Concerning the layout errors: I don't know why the tables appear in such a different way in comparison to the german Wikipedia article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Kretzer. Although I used the same codes the gallery appears on the left instead on the right side.

You see, I need some assistance. And please excuse my bad english. Best regards Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia's policy regarding the citing of sources states that "Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles" (WP:PSTS, third dot point, last line in section)
There are parts which are contentious such as (the bold bit) "The Czech pianist and piano paedagogue Drahomir Toman, a grandson pupil of Liszt and fellow student of Friedrich Gulda, promoted and influenced Kretzer's further musical development to 1986"
  1. Before adding of a source consider this: "Does it prove what I want it to prove?". Does Rachmaninoff.ogg prove anything or is it something which readers of the article may wish to know (if so then it goes in the External Links section or in the See Also section if it is further reading).
  2. As long as the sources proves it, which from your description it does then it is most certainly a source which should be included.
  3. I've sort of fixed it, I just can't get the text to wrap around.
  • Does this help? Anything else I can help with?

Callanecc (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply.
  1. I now changed the phrase promoted an influenced to had great influence on. At least that is what Kretzer said himself about these years. I'm not sure whether this change fits your point.
  2. Do I understand right: should the Rachmaninoff.ogg be mentioned in the Notes section?
  3. I put in some blank lines to make the gallery appear opn the right side. It's far away from being perfect but it seems to be the only solution.
  4. If you don't mind to precisely mark other contentious parts it would be a great help.
Thanks again and regards Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You said he says it himself, but there is not evidence of that. When talking about personal life you need to include references. It is a contentious part of a biography so needs to be referenced (if you can find them).
  2. No in the External Links section. I've changed the name Notes to References to be clear.
  3. Yeah once it's in main space someone will fix it.
  4. I'll mark the ones I can see with Template:citation needed. I'll also add one or more maintenance tags to the submission (you don't need to do these for it to be accpeted into main space [excluding the ones related to references).
No worries, anything I can do, let me know. Callanecc (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Callanecc, I never had thought how tricky it could be to create an article in the english wikipedia - it was so much easier in the german one. Anyway, this is your playground and these are your rules and of course I can see the point of them. But now what to do? A lot of what I wrote is what Kretzer told me personally - how can I prove that? He himself says where and what he studied and what his interests are on his facebook site. Other parts are content of his official website, for example the "Czech pianist and piano pedagoge"-bit or the critics from all over europe or from central america. I already mentioned his facebook- and website as an external link. Is it legal to cite it as a reference too? To prove the awards-section might become extremely difficult - of course he has got these awards in paper form, one could copy them as pdf but Kretzer won't agree to load them up to the commons. Another example: his pupil Natasha Garcia-Guinot names him as one of her teachers on her website. This site is one of the external links. Should I put it into the reference section? I'm very sorry for asking these probably stupid questions but I'm not very experienced in this business. So thanks again for your assistance. By the way:
I like very much the infobox! Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What he told you would be original research which isn't allowed - so unless you can find a source for it it's probably a good idea to get rid of it. But if it isn't a direct quote and it isn't contentious, and there are no red flags from words to watch it probably won't get deleted.
  • See WP:FACEBOOK - it primarily states that it can be used as a primary sources as long as it can be authentiated to Kretzer.
  • If you can name the critics (with sources perferrably) and get quotes (which are cited) that will go a long way.
  • Official webistes should be in there (which it is - in the infobox) and can be used as a primary source, they just don't, by themselves, demostrate notability.
  • You can (and should quote) Natasha Garcia-Guinot from her website, just make sure you cite it.
  • No worries re asking them. I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to answer them.
Callanecc (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Callanecc, it's me again. I now added what I understand as references to the contentious parts. Could you have a look, please? I hope very much that everything is OK. Tanks Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. Which passages do you still mean with peacock terms? If you could exactly tell me I will try to fix it. Greetings Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes & I've removed the tags. Well done, you should be proud of the work you have put into the article. I suggest that, once you've done all you can think to it, you should go for an independant review from WikiProject Biography which will provide some pointers on what to do next. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review for more information. Callanecc (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. A final question: is my english good enough or are there typical germanisms, wrong prepositions or phrases which make native speakers laugh or, worse, angry? Best regards and thanks again Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)

Yeah there are a few times, but it isn't something you would (well me anyway) laugh (etc) about, just notice. Compared with some other things are written on the English Wikipedia, your writing isn't noticeable. If you ever need help in the future please feel free to leave me a message (just under a new heading though :) - I think this one is quite long already). Callanecc (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, let's close this for now. And if I need your help once again I'll accept your friendly offer. Keep well, thanks again and best regards, Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article accepted and moved into main space.

how to correct article : bio about living person

hello, I submitted an article about Mr. Crow Swimsaway, PhD, from Athens, OH a neoshaman. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crow Swimsaway,PhD.

I would like to correct any problems and resubmit. Should I have verified each statement I made at the beginning of this article--I assumed my list of references would show where I got the information but I can reference each statement if necessary.

can you point out more specifically what should be changed or what do you recommend that I correct? Mairyann (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC) mairyann[reply]


  • If you have a look at Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons it will give you some pointers. Basically anything which has been "challenged or likely to be challenged" and anything which is contentious MUST have an inline citation. Also anything personal should be cited (such as the third point below). For example:
    • "Swimsaway studied Cranio Sacral healing as an extension of the shamanic hands-on energy healing he practices and teaches."
    • "Both He and his wife, presented a paper to "8th Conference International society for shamanic Research" 2007 in Budapest, Hungary."
    • "When he was age two or three Swimaway's Mother died of peritonitis. His father was a young physician at the time and put Swimsaway in the care of his grandmother, Bes Davis Nettleship where he happily lived on a farm in the Arkansas Ozarks until he turned 9 or 10. Then he lived in several states in midwest as he moved around with his father, a physician and coroner."
  • I also suggest that you work on the WP:TONE and layout. The following should provide some guidance:
  • Does this help? Let me know if you need any more assistance.

Callanecc (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Business Engagement Center

Thank you for reviewing my article about the University of Michigan Business Engagement Center. I have now added a wider variety of sources to the articles. I was going to resubmit it, but it won't let me since you didn't officially decline it. Can you please review the article again and consider it again to be published? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean P. Dougherty (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean P. Dougherty (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate it. Sean P. Dougherty (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well done those sources are better, although have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, note that blogs are not reliable. See the comment I left on the article when I declined it:
I believe the information to accept the article is there, however because of the tone, non-use of the
formal tone expected on Wikipedia and the use of
peacock terms it reads more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article.
  • Some examples:
    • "The BEC represents an example of a holistic corporate relations effort at a national research university."
    • "The BEC connects ideas, technologies, and knowledge created by students, faculty, and departments."
    • "This allows companies to more quickly and easily discover joint research opportunities at U-M, connect with student design teams, and uncover technology utilization and commercialization opportunities."
  • Does that make sense? Happy to help more if you need it.

Callanecc (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

Article accepted and moved into main space.

Disambiguation and a New Page

Hi!

First of all, thank you for responding to my outcry :-)

I am new to wikipedia, just created an account today. I am a journalist and PhD student so I assumed I had it in the pocket, but, no, I don't. Heh. Just now, I edited the page of Hugo Nicolson Hugo Nicolson, an English producer and engineer to include a couple biographical details because I looked him up here on wiki (for another article I'm writing) and found a couple things missing... When I added another album to his discography though, wiki automatically accepted the change but much to my chagrin I found that it was to another record of the same name, and a) I'm not sure how to use the disambiguation redirect, and b) the page for the appropriate record doesn't exist and I don't know what kind of sources to cite the existence of an album???

I know that's an eyeful, but, if you have any time to help!

Thank you,

Angie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deliblujeli (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angie and welcome to Wikipedia. You need to be an autoconfirmed user to move a page so you won't be able to yet....
I think, the better way to create an article would be through the Article wizard. When you have created the article you can submit it to articles for creation where it will be reviewed by an experienced editor. This can take a long time to be reviewed so leave me another message (here) and I'll review (rather than you waiting for someone to get to it) it when I get a chance. Callanecc (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, make sure that when you post on talk pages you sign using four tildes (~~~~) so it's clear who wrote the comment. Callanecc (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, fantastic, thank you :-) I did try with the Article Wizard a bit but I'll sit down and give it a better shot-- and I'll send it over to you for sure once I do! And yes, I did notice the signature after already posting this and tried to change it-- it's confusing to know when I've submitted something or edited something or added a new topic, oh my... Hehe... but here goes Deliblujeli (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Deliblujeli[reply]

whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page.

Help needed to clear the Feedback Dashboard queue

Hi Callanecc, a project has been constructed and Maryana (WMF) was wondering if you'd be able to help out with a research project her colleagues are running on the effects of MoodBar/Feedback Dashboard. They're trying to see if getting a response to MoodBar feedback helps newbies edit more – but to do that, they need to (temporarily) raise the level of responses to as close to 100% as possible. (Don't worry; it's only a week-long test.) If you could help me and her spread the word among the other FD top responders you know to help us clear the backlog by June 19th, that would be awesome! More details about this test are on this page on Meta. Let her know if you have any questions and feel free to get in touch with other FD leaders about this if you want :) Cheers,
Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 23:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, have a barnstar, you deserve it!

The Feedback Dashboard barnstar
Hola Callanecc, thank you for all the work you've done responding to feedback via the Feedback Dashboard! Without people like you, this feature would be useless! Cheers,
Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 01:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karishmeh Felfeli

Hi Callannecc, did you intend to get Karishmeh Felfeli deleted as it seems? You haven't voted at the AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now, thank you. Callanecc (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might be as well to sign too! ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thank you. Callanecc (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William A Whitcombe

Good afternoon, I'm a little confused with this submission as each time I resubmit with the requested details the goal posts seem to keep changing. I was orginally told that this was a notable enough person and to submit appropriate references, which I have done. I now being told that he is not notable enough. What must I do to resolve this? Thanks, Andy Simonevans680 (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon, I've spoken with User:Graeme Bartlett and we still don't think that general notability and notability (people) has been established. You need to provide references which show that Whitcombe has had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - see here. Callanecc (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a fantastic job!

Callanecc, thank you so much from me and the MoodBar research team for your work on clearing the Feedback Dashboard backlog! You and the other responders have doubled the number of responses to feedback in the past few days. I wanted to let you know that in 4 more days, the MoodBar will be temporarily disabled, so you won't see any new feedback coming in for a little while. This is just to get a sample of users to compare to the ones who could give feedback and get responses from you – it'll be back soon. So get all of your responding in now, because you might have to go through a bit of Feedback Dashboard withdrawal next week :) Thanks again, and keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your wonderful work on the Feedback Dashboard.  TOW  talk  21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!

Thanks for your response to my issue... Thankfully, it resolved itself and I was able to make the changes that I wanted to make. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonz02152001 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chargemaster

Hi Callanecc,

I'm a bit confused with my post. I uploaded something I wrote on Chargemaster and I can't find it anywhere.

Why is this?

Thanks,

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickb123pha (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickb123pha (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to article review

Hi.

I saw that you rejected my article of the "Parshvanath College of Engineering" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Parshvanath_college_of_engineering) because it seemed more like an advertisement rather than a neutral encyclopedia entry.

I have made some changes that may make it better.

But I'd like to point out that I also included an "Issues and controversies" section at the end of my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Parshvanath_college_of_engineering#Issues_and_controversies) that describes the negative points about the college. An advertising article would not display such information.

And my article seems to be much better, more detailed, more neutral and more professional than some other "stub"-like articles about engineering colleges that are there on Wikipedia.

Please consider these points. And please also note that this is just the article's beginning on Wikipedia. It can be further improved with time (with images, further information, etc.), not only by myself, but also by other contributors.

Sincerely, Sarthak Sharma.

Intelligentguy89 (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of standards which are used when accepting articles on WikiProject Articles for Creation has been the issue of many discussions amongst reviewers. It has been established that since we have the opportunity we will use it to improve articles well beyond the point that they may be CSDed.
In its current state it looks like a sales pitch - "this is what we can provide for you, and these are some issues which we will tell you up front". You need to add a history, as well as some basic facts like number of employees, number of students, turnover or profits, etc.
The article also needs to comply with the general notability guideline (also see WP:GNG) as well as the notability guideline for organisations, primarily through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The primary sources which the article has now are fine for facts about the college, but do not demonstrate notability, or expel problems with advertising.
Callanecc (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFC

Just wanted to say thanks for inviting me to join Wikiproject AFC, I have joined and have begun reviewing AFCs. Athleek123 06:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever need any help, advice, or a second pair of eyes (and brain) feel free to ask me and I'll see what I can do. If you aren't already I suggest you use the AfC Helper it makes it A LOT quicker and easier. Callanecc (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely will contact you if I need any help, and I am already using AFCH helper, but thanks for the pointer. Athleek123 06:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still alive

Jaggs's victim is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because there was very little information (such as a link to another wikipedia page, or even the rest of Jaggs's name) or a reference given. Callanecc (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search with "William Jaggs" will produce many sources in the national papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add him I suggest you first propose it on the article's talk page. If you want to add him you will need to provide a reliable source for both what he did as well as a reliable source which proves that he attended Harrow School. Callanecc (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war?

(Refers to article: Nicosia) Callanecc (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. (see below) Thanks anyway, will take a wikibreak and let other users deal with it. --Seksen (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would also like to point out that I am consistently trying to use the talk page, but no one is responding. Thank you again. --Seksen (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And plus what I say here. You seem to have an impression that there is a consensus for not including North Nicosia-related material. That impression is wrong. I think knowing this would be useful for you. --Seksen (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am speaking so much, but lastly, I would also like to ask you to re-insert the sourced population figures which are not subject to any dispute between users. --Seksen (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with that you using the talk page (and well done), but perhaps a better way to deal with it is to get the page semi/fully protected and perhaps ask for help on an appropriate appropriate noticeboard or go for dispute resolution; this avoids the problem which I saw and encourages people to discuss it rather than just change each other's edits. The reason I asked everyone not to post everything is that it was just creating problems. I wasn't saying that there was a consensus not to include information about Northern Nicosia, I just did it to avoid further problems. Callanecc (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about removing the population data (and thank you for using sources) I've put it back. The reason I did it is because during an "edit war" (especially one which isn't just reverts) is that the artice can be changed (eg extra spaces, table and gallery markup changed). Sorry about the inconvenience and thanks for letting me know to put it back (and not doing it yourself and possibily creating more problems). Callanecc (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the wikibreak, if you can I suggest you stay around for a while and contribute to the (hopeful) discussion. You seem to have a lot to contribute and are willing to do so. Don't worry about talking too much, better to discuss then having what's been happenning (which I realise you were trying to discuss). Callanecc (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the truth is, I am also concerned about finding an article to translate to Turkish and concentrating on it, so I have been thinking about this for some days :) But thanks for your kind suggestion, I will consider it in case there is any discussion. As for the consensus issue, we already have content about North Nicosia in the article and about the north in a number of other articles such as Cyprus (and there are images there as well), so I cannot see a reason why not to have images where we have information (well, considering how the (Greek) Cypriot government tries to make the north seem to the world as a place stuck in the 70s and everything in there as decaying, and that as a result many Greek Cypriots view it this way, I can see why these edits are done - by the way, the dispute was mainly about the images, not the content). I think what we need is having a discussion about not including north-related content and images. --Seksen (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My belief (and I'm happy to admit I could have this wrong) is that images are content. So it in that sense it is a content problem. And if some pieces of content are fine (such as the stuff already there about Northern Nicosia) and some are going to cause the type of conflict which has happened. I think the best way to fix it is to have a complete and full discusion about the issues involved, and then clearly showing the consensus so that from then on it any edit against it would be against a consensus. Callanecc (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but the main problem here is to get the others involved in discussion. With "content" I meant the prose. And another thing, if there is going to be content about North Nicosia (which is currently the case), that needs to have a due weight, in the landmarks section and the education section and so on. And if images are also content, they also need to have a due weight given to both sides. But what the anonymous user is objecting to is having any images of North Nicosia (it could even be a FP, but still, no), and this is a clear violation of WP:DUE under these conditions. No need for talkback, I will be monitoring the page for some time. --Seksen (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So if it were to be made clear than there wouldn't be a problem saying that it was a clear breach of consensus, however at the moment it isn't clear on the talk page that content about North Nicosia should be included in the article. But I see what you mean, however I still think the way it happened could have been better managed/controlled (such as through warning the IP user who refused it to be allowed which could lead to a block; or asking for the article to be semi/fully protected so that everything could calm down a bit). Callanecc (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see your point, but the IP is dynamic, so I do not think he/she would receive my message as he/she makes a couple of edits and then is not around for a few days. But I will try to follow your advice in case I am involved in such a situation again. --Seksen (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was not vandalism

Hi!

The edit was made by myself while not logged in. It was not vandalism as identified in your edit summary here and, contrary to the template message here, there is an edit summary when the list was deleted. The addition of the bullet list of characters was reverted multiple times by multiple editors on this article in the past and it is a practice standard on GA and FA-class film articles, especially when a prose section on casting exists. Maybe it's not reasonable for me to expect that you check the prior edits and edit summaries pertaining to this issue but, by the same token, it may be unreasonable for you to extract bad faith from an edit where content was removed rather than added.

Please be careful using automated tools when reverting suspected vandalism. When primarily focusing on being quick rather than accurate, more harm than good can come as a result. Had it been a new IP user rather than myself forgetting to log in, they might have been intimidated of the project for good. Sometimes a first impression that a new IP user gets of Wikipedia can, unfortunately, be the only impression they get.

Thanks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I didn't realise it was standard practice on GA & FA-class articles, not to have cast lists in prose sections. Just a quick note, from my (while I admit it is somewhat limited) experience the removal of content (especailly of whole sections) is quite reasonable that the removal of large amounts of content can (and usually is) in bad faith. But on the other note, my sincere appologies. I admit I was probably a little preoccupied when I was looking at the article and the fact that it was a GA-class article probably would have pushed me further to revert you removing it. Sorry, Callanecc (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my comment so well, I appreciate the effort to be receptive to criticism.
I think you're absolutely right that removal of large amounts of content can usually be in bad faith. But unless the content removed constitutes a really large and significant part of an article (eg, removal of the "History" section from United States) or the removal has an edit summary along the lines of "JIMMY WALES CAN SUCK MY ASS!!!!!", bad faith may not be quite so obvious and a bit of additional homework and diplomacy from established editors should be employed. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and they don't need to know the rules before they do so. The burden, therefore, is on us (established editors, that is) to be very certain (more than just making a reasonable assumption) that the edit is vandalism before we label it as such and template a newbie.
Anyhow, you took my comment as a gentleman (or gentleperson, I am a supporter of GNL) and there's more than a little to be thankful for there.
Have a good one! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and thanks for letting me know, and I've learnt something from it which will be helpful in the future. Thanks, and sorry again, Callanecc (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's intentional

I discussed it in talk. Let Wehwalt have a look at it. If he wants to put the infobox back, that can be done, but still using the layout of pictures. Just let it stand for a day or two. So the FA author can look at it. It is a significant layout change (with thought behind it). Not a recent changes patroller type thing. 64.134.168.97 (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc&oldid=499088292"