User talk:Chris j wood/2017

Request for FAC review

Hello Chris,

I've launched a candidacy for featured article for Palais Rohan in Strasbourg, but so far I've only been getting the rough treatment for the images and strictly nothing on the content: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1. You did care about exactly that kind of article and place a while ago, which I remember fondly since it encouraged me to edit resolutely. Could you maybe have a look into the candidacy? I would be very grateful and it would be good for Wikipedia, too. All the best, Edelseider (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Green Park Business Park

The article Green Park Business Park has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not seeing evidence of WP:GNG. Excessive detail based on primary sources (or unsourced), and some routine coverage. I see the wind turbine has received some minor coverage that isn't actually coverage of the business park (and not quite enough to carry notability on its own).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. The article certainly needs work, but I think that common sense suggests that a business park with dozens of buildings, hundreds of acres of grounds and thousands of employees ought to be notable. For now, I have replaced the proposed deletion with a refimprove, and made some improvements (actually wholesale deletion of the gazateer-like info). I will work on finding some more secondary sources; I'm sure they are there but the trick is finding them in the volume of real estate sales and marketing material. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rodda

For an explanation of my change to Matt Rodda, please see WP:NICKNAME, " Notable distinctions can be explained in the article, but avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original given name(s), in quotes between first and last name. For example: Bill Clinton, not William "Bill" Clinton." Edwardx (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

With reference to my revert of this edit. If you read the edit summary you will discover that the edit was made on the personal observation of the person making the edit. This most certainly is original research and is not permitted. -- 86.149.141.8 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Wikipedia:No original research prohibits the inclusion of information in a Wikipedia article based on original research. And the edit you reverted did not add any information to the article, so it cannot possibly have violated that prohibition. What it did was remove information for which there was no cited source within the article. Admittedly the originator of that edit didn't help by over-justifying the removal; all (s)he really needed to say was 'removing uncited information'. As a matter of politeness, I've added the cite needed template to the article (both in lead and detail) to give you or others a chance to come up with a source for the line not operating on public holidays (I did look for myself, but failed to find anything), but if a source is not forthcoming it will inevitably be deleted. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the claim was unreferenced. -- 86.149.141.8 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what claim?. The edit you reverted was purely a deletion; no claim was added. Wikipedia requires sources for all information included in an article. Sources are not required for removing information from an article, especially where that information is itself unsourced. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor specifically claimed that the Waterloo and City line runs on Bank Holidays (and said so in the edit summary). This was from a personal observation so was original research. The claim was unreferenced. Q.E.D. I grant that original claim that it did not was equally unreferenced. 86.149.141.8 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they didn't, at least not in the article. Prior to Peteginger's edit, and now after your reversion, the article claims (without any source) that the Waterloo and City line does not run on most public holidays. Between the edit and reversion, it said nothing about whether the line ran on public holidays or not. I would absolutely agree that if result of the edit had been to explicitly say that the line runs on public holidays, then a source would have been needed for the statement, and original research would have been prohibited. But that isn't what the edit did. As to what was said in the edit summary, at the end of the day that matters not one jot since there is no way (short of admin-level magic) to revert an edit summary. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since following a few edits from yourself that the point is now moot, it is probably best if we agree to disagree. As for 'hiding behind IP address anonymity', you have it the wrong way around. An IP address is far from anonymous unlike a registered account. You might be a Chris J Wood - but then again you could be any Chris J Wood (I doubt that the name is remotely near unique) or it might not be your name at all. 86.149.141.8 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed my real name could be anything. But if you go to my user page and click user contributions, then you can see my edit history (all 13 years and 96,000 edits). If I do the same with IPaddress 86.149.141.8, I see a handful of edits with the oldest one being yesterday. I don't know if I'm talking to an extreme newbie (although from your quoting of WP policies, I rather doubt it) or an extremely experienced editor using a DHCP allocated address. Perhaps lack-of-transparency would be a better term than anonymity. Anyway, as you say, it is all a bit moot. I'm happy to agree to disagree. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered bad form to split posts. 86.149.141.8 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, this is my talk page. And I do not appreciate being told how to behave on it by an editor who shelters behind IP address anonymity. I've tried to be polite in my behaviour and comments. And my splitting of your comment in no way changed its meaning, and was purely intended to improve the readability of the discussion. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry if my justification was inappropriate - I am new to editing wikipedia. To address the edit, perhaps you can assist in the proper procedure to correct the page. There is no evidence for the statement that I deleted. There cannot ever be any citation provided - because they are not true. But there also must be a way for us to delete those claims, because they are not true, which is demonstrated by that lack of evidence. So should I just go ahead and delete them, with the justification that an extensive search finds no evidence of this? -- peteginger —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't think there was anything wrong with your edit. Personally I would have added the {{cite needed}} template and left it a week or two before deleting (essentially what I have now done) but there is no requirement to do that, especially if you believe that the uncited information is incorrect. There is no need to quote sources when deleting uncited information, as (as you point out) that would lead to the logical impossibility of having to prove a negative. I suspect that the editor who reverted your change simply misunderstood what you were doing; it would probably help to avoid this in future if you included 'removing uncited information' or just 'rm uncite' as part of your edit comment when that is what you are doing. Keep up the good work. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comapny of Watermen and Lightermen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Comapny of Watermen and Lightermen. Since you had some involvement with the Comapny of Watermen and Lightermen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. f e minist 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teleférico de Madrid

Please don't blank pages. If you want to delete a page, please refer to the deletion policy. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must have caught the article in an intermediate stage of changing it from a redir (to an entirely inappropriate destination) into a stub. Don't know quite how I blanked it on the way, but thanks for pointing this out. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Heliservices

The article Heliservices has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references since 2007. Lost of list entries today, but no press coverage with reliable independent reporting. No evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It is difficult to remember that twelve years ago (when I started and last touched this article) we didn't really do references; WP has moved on a lot since those days. Still, better late than never; I've now added some references that I think are sufficient to establish notability. One from the South China Morning Post, usually regarded as HK's newspaper of record, one from the Hong Kong government, and one (primary) from the company itself. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chris j wood. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of urban areas in Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norrö (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Chris j wood.

AS one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. ~~~~

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Chris j wood.

AfC submissions
Random submission

~6 weeks

1,064 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]