User talk:Luwilt

This user may have left Wikipedia. Luwilt has not edited Wikipedia since July 5, 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello, Luwilt! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! J.Naven 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Article about rerating thingy

Hello. Just a word to say I was just about to make the same edit, and then you did! Nice work :) Skittle (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I

You removed a link from this article because "no-one will confuse the two, or even visit this page unless it is the king's trial that they are looking for". Actually it is possible to get to the article using the random article function or by following a link such as this one that disguises the destination. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But not I think to imagine that it is the article about a current court. Luwilt (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Relocated

Hi, Lutwilt. Your question on Women on the German Stage was wrongly placed at the top of the Humanities Desk, in the section for March 26, which is just about to be archived. Few, if any, people would have seen it there. I've relocated it for you to April 1; so hopefully you will get some good answers. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi, I see you just reorganized the categories for Neil Goldschmidt and Ted Kulongoski. Thanks for the help -- I think! It's tough to understand what you're trying to do, though, without edit summaries. A quick note in those fields is a nice courtesy, please consider using them in the future. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from London Underground. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. please do not remove tags without first fixing the issues or providing rationale. We know it looks ugly, but it's minor considering the rest of the article's problems. BG 7 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a rationale. It is a complete waste of time. It implied that referencing may be required in any place, but it is not required for every fact. Those tags did nothing but harm: they will do nothing to improve the accuracy of the article. The article is very accurate as it is. Spraying some more footnotes around will not address any small slips that may have been made, but will simply mislead those who place excessive reliance on footnotes. If you have any specific concerns about the article, please address them individually. Luwilt (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are excessively fond of automatically generated text. The automatically generated text above is inaccurate, patronising, and insulting. Luwilt (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article talk page.

BG 7 00:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on it to make me change my mind. Luwilt (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Public transport in Romania

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Public transport in Romania, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Public transport in Romania has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Public transport in Romania, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Towns

Hi there. With respect, I don't think your line added to New towns in the United Kingdom "Some were completely new, while others were expansions of existing settlements, sometimes known as "expanded towns"" is really very helpful. The New Towns proper were a specific set of towns, known as New Towns, to which the article relates. They were originally intended to be largely self contained ('sustainable'), and developed by the Commission for the New Towns through development corporations. Expanded Towns were a later and much watered down concept. The London overspill article contains a fuller list of new and expanded towns. Pterre (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stood was seriously misleading. Anyone from outside the UK (and plenty inside it) would naturally assume that all the towns were founded on virgin sites unless told otherwise, but that simply isn't the case. For example Northampton has been around since the middle ages. It is essential that any article in an encyclopedia written for a general audience provides context that will not lead to serious misunderstandings. By all means improve the context, but not providing any at all is just bad editing. Luwilt (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly true that the New Towns were not in fact new - most if not all were developed around an historic core. My issue is with the addition of Expanded Towns to the line: this rather muddies the water as they are not the same thing as New Towns. Pterre (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Mail/Mirror

Many thanks for spotting this error in list of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation, which I have now corrected. Best Wishes, Warofdreams talk 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hey with regard to the On-going T20 World Cup article , i would like to hear your opinion on adding "Highest scores" and " highest wicket Taker" Tables to the article page -Subash Chandran ⁰⁰⁷ ׀ sign! 18:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham

; --Kudpung (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Re this, the tag was there because there's no indication of why those players have been mentioned. If you want to clarify, you could say that it's a comprehensive list of everyone who attended the UCCE who has gone on to xxxxxxxxxx. Currently, it's extremely vague and resonant of POV. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicion of bias amounts to an allegation of bad faith against the editor or editors who produced the list. The natural and good faith assumption is that they were simply trying to provide useful information. Luwilt (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Calm down. Take a break, come back and reread what I wrote. Then, let's discuss. --Dweller (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two months later I still think your allegation of POV is comically implausible. Someone is simply trying to provide useful information, and they have to put up with slurs against their motives, hints that they are engaged in some sort of biased campaign to mislead. How can that sort of nonsense possibly help wikipedia? Luwilt (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham Technology

Hi Luwilt! It is suggested that a pre PROD, pre AfD, or pre Speedy discussion should take place before opening a deletion process for Evesham Technology. Please visit the article if you can, and leave your comments and suggestions at Talk:Evesham Technology--Kudpung (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hectares vs square meters

It took exactly nine months to the day for someone to fix the roof at Versailles... Merci beaucoup! --Frania W. (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Aldridge

Sorry for reverting your edit as unreferenced Luwilt; it was a very valuable addition and I should have checked for a reference to confirm it rather than deleting it. Having found a reference I have reinstated the substance of what you added. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Sam Oldham

Hi. Regarding this diff. Do you have a source for it? Furthermore, the gymnast you mention in your edit does not have his own article yet and I'm thinking this may be fairly trivial and non-notable. How about just "put up with the family of a fellow gymnast" or similar? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was on a video about him that I watched on BBC iPlayer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7488754.stm

[Probably only viewable in the UK, but I don't see why that should disqualify at a source, as for practical purposes it is accessible to more people than most academic texts. Nor should the fact that it is video rather than text, in 2010.]

I would like to see the name retained, because I think these sort of connections do matter - would either of them have stuck with gymnastics through the temptations of their teenage years without their friendship? - yet it is likely to be overlooked in the future if it disappears now, and I would rate Cameron Mackenzie's chances of acquiring his own article in the next few years at better than 50:50, given the rapidly increasing strength of British gymnastics and the fact that he is one of our best juniors, albeit not quite as good as Sam Oldham. He is already a team gold medalist at junior European level, which I suspect would be enough to ensure retention of the article were it created now, though I am not going to do so. Luwilt (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll redlink the name and get to creating an article soon. Thanks for the info! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

You are now listed at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Should you ever return, feel free to remove yourself from the list. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]