User talk:Obscurasky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation overkill[edit]

About this: This only repeats what is presented lower in the article, and supported by sources already named in the article. It's common to have the fewest number of citations in the introduction (see WP:LEADCITE). If you agree that the sources named in the article (e.g., [1] for the first sentence) sufficiently cover these points, then perhaps you'll choose to remove the citation-needed tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The first request was because the statement 'the terms used to describe this condition are subject to a process called the euphemism treadmill' seems very much POV, and the second was because I'd like to see some kind of reference to support the claim that the terms were 'invented in the middle of the 20th century'. If this claim is referenced later on in the article I haven’t spotted it. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


Here's a little bit of magic which can save you an awful lot of time and effort![edit]

You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can;t do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose soemthing appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! Pesky (talkstalk!) 07:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfilled reference![edit]

Hi there, I've just come across your article Religious beliefs of The Beatles while doing new page patrol; your reference

  • [13] (<ref name = Partridge100 >{{Harvnb|Partridge|2005|p=153}}</ref>)

doesn't actually have a link to the Partridge book anywhere (and as far as I can see, it didn't have it in the first revision). Could you go back and see where you found it, and fill the citation in there? It's the only time that named ref, or any Harvard ref, is used, so filling straight in between the <ref></ref> tags will work fine. Pesky (talkstalk!) 07:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UKIPlogo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UKIPlogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Tylorstown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sky TV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian Concern[edit]

There is discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Christian_Concern which you might like to participate in. Please use the article talk page to discuss the content, not contributors, as you did here. If you have concerns about my motives you may raise them on my talk page in the usual way. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You wrote 'Removing material on the basis that it appears to paint an organisation in a bad light should not be a motivation for edits' in a context that implied that I was doing that. If you think so, then have the courage to say so outright, and if you are not willing to say so outright, don't mention my motives at all. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
People who make edits with personal agendas undermine the whole basis of Wikipedia. The above is just a statement of fact........something I'd like to think you agree with it. Obscurasky (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Please don't insult my intelligence with that tired old "just a statement of fact" stuff. You made that particular statement, more than once, and after I had asked you not to be personal, in order to undermine my argument by implying that I might have a personal agenda, and you know it, and I know it. Just cut it out. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you're very rude.....someting else which has no place on Wikipedia.Obscurasky (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anglican Mainstream (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Christian conservatism
Core Issues Trust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Advertising Standards Authority

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll[edit]

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" request for formal mediation[edit]

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have a strong opinion on this issue. On balance I'd favour the lower case option, mid-sentence, but the most important thing for me is that there is concensus one way or another. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC[edit]

Hello Obscurasky; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CSD vsWP:AFD[edit]

Anyone but the originator of the article may remove a speedy tag, as I did at Cross necklace, when reviewing the article as an administrator to see if it should be deleted a I removed the tag because speedy deletion is strictly and narrowly limited to those instances enumerated at WP:CSD, and whether an article might not be on a recognized term is not among them. The only possibly relevant tags would be no show of importance, which only applies to apply to articles about people, organizations, individual animals,and planned events-- this article is not in any of these classes. The other would be G11 promotionalism, and that does not seem to apply either, as no specific thing or company is being promoted. If you still want the article deleted, you should use either WP:PROD or WP:AFD-- WP:PROD is only useful if you think there will be no objections to the removal ,because anyone, even the creator, can remove a prod tag, so I think that leaves AfD. I cannot judge whether or not the community will decide the article should be deleted, and it is not up to me.

I see you replaced the tag I removed, and this is not permitted. See WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy. I do not think any administrator would delete the article on the basis of the criterion you used. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Please move this discussion to the talk page of the Cross necklace page.
Please demonstrate that Cross necklace is a legitimate term and then remove the tag. Obscurasky (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I did indeed put this on that page also.There is no need to add a reference to remove a speedy tag. I do not know where you found that imaginary rule. Please read the policy pages I linked to. If you re-add the tag, it will likely to be considered disruptive, and I shall ask some other administrator to tell you so. Had I left the tag on ,or deleted the article, that's when someone could have validly complained about me. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Christian sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war notice[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Note that "he's a celebrity!!!1!1!!" is not one of the exceptions-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

White Album move request[edit]

I addressed your concerns at Talk:The Beatles (album)#Requested move 31 March 2014. I would appreciate your feedback. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In particular: May I point out that saying that the official name takes precedence over colloquial names is contrary to our own article titling guidelines, WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIAL? Our own title guidelines say to use a common name over the official name. Dralwik|Have a Chat 13:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed, and certainly trumps my argument, although I'm still not convinced that changing The Beatles (album) name is actually covered by the rationale shown in WP:OFFICIAL. Thoughts? Obscurasky (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:OFFICIAL alone is not quite strong enough for my liking, with the closest match for the album being that The White Album has become a de facto formal reference to the album when the official name could cause confusion, such as for someone searching for the album's article. Although as a counterexample I would argue that China over People's Republic of China would be an example of us bypassing a well known official name in favor of a more concise informal name, so there is precedent in using a fourth criterion, when a colloquial reference is as or more recognizable than an already well known formal name. I realize OFFICIAL alone would be weak, so I am advocating that it is the combination of that showing our lack of binding to official names, WP:Commonname with the ubiquity of The White Album nickname, the redirect from TWA pointing straight to that page implying no ambiguity concerns over using The White Album, and WP:NCDAB's discomfort with the parenthetical construct that forms my argument. I'm using that combination of policies to augment each other into what I hope is a persuasive combination. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
So what do you think? Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have responded under my original comment on the page. Cheers, Obscurasky (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for your patience. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Trail[edit]

Many thanks for the encouraging comments. I never intended to do so much, and was in fact planning to take a break from Wikipedia! i regret that neither of the suggestions is of real interest, as I'm a walker rather than cyclist, but if I have a moment I might try and do something.Rwood128 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

AntiChristian sentiment[edit]

Just Vandalism[2] explains everything? You may have got a better idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've written something on the talk page, it would be great if you could add something there. Obscurasky (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Trail riding[edit]

Thanks. It is most helpful to have another pair of eyes, especially as an over-the-hill hiker I felt a little out of my depth, especially re usage. Rwood128 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

RM notice[edit]

You may be interested in Talk:Razorback#Requested move November 2014, as you participated in previous related discussions.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warren James, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coleford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)