User talk:Quantpole/Archive 1

The Great Leeds Debate

I hesitate to complicate matter even more by putting this comment into the general debate, but I think you may have stumbled onto a solution when you mentioned Islington. There are actually three entries for Islington as follows :-

1. Islington which starts "Islington is the central district of the London Borough of Islington. It is an inner-city district in London, spanning from Islington High Street to Highbury Fields, encompassing the area around the busy Upper Street. The name is now also often applied to the areas of the borough close to Upper Street such as Barnsbury and Canonbury, developed in the Georgian era."
2. London Borough of Islington which starts "The London Borough of Islington ( pronunciation (help·info)) is a London borough in North and Inner London. It was formed in 1965 by merging the former metropolitan boroughs of Islington and Finsbury. The borough contains two Westminster parliamentary constituencies; Islington North and Islington South & Finsbury."
3. Metropolitan Borough of Islington which starts "The Metropolitan Borough of Islington was a metropolitan borough within the County of London from 1900 to 1965, when it was amalgamated with the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury to form the London Borough of Islington."

It is not unusual to find articles for former authorities in Wikipedia (see Spenborough or Queensbury and Shelf or even, in the Leeds context, Wharfedale Rural District) and would make a fair bit of sense. So, you would have :-

1. Leeds which would start "Leeds is the central district of the City of Leeds. Its core is the central business district of the city, including the financial and commercial areas, located on the River Aire in West Yorkshire, England. The name is now also often applied to the areas of the city that, until 1974, formed the County Borough of Leeds."
2. City of Leeds which would start "The City of Leeds is a metropolitan district in West Yorkshire, England. It was formed in 1974 from the former County Borough of Leeds, the Municipal Boroughs of Morley and Pudsey, the Urban Districts of Aireborough, Horsforth, Otley, Garforth and Rothwell, and parts of the Rural Districts of Tadcaster, Wetherby and Wharfedale."
3. County Borough of Leeds which would start "The County Borough of Leeds was a former local authority within the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was created as a municipal borough by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 and became a county borough with the Local Government Act 1888. Originally consisting of the civil parishes of ..."

It would involve moving a lot of information to the most appropriate page, and a disambigulation note (as with Islington) at the top of each. But perhaps, if 2 into 1 won't go, 2 into 3 will work out better. Or is that just giving people even more to argue about? I'm not suggesting this as a definitive answer, just a suggestion to be toyed with. Clearly there are a lot of people out there who are unhappy about merging the articles for whatever reason (and I'm sure some of them have their own agendas). As it stands however, very few of them seem to be able to define "Leeds" in any form that makes much sense other than an abstract statistical area (the equivalent area for my own town, Stockport, excludes even parts of the former County Borough for some bizarre reason!). Perhaps clearly delineating each area in its introduction could help solve the problem. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quantpole, could you please set up your email link by ammending your preferences, so that I may email you with some additional data regarding your Leeds merger input. Thanks --Draylax (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quantpole, just wondered what you thought of the new non-merger proposal and whether you would be prepared to move forward with that? --Razorlax (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Leeds

I've made what will be my final contribution to the Leeds talkpage, because I will only start repeating myself. Taking a step back from discussion just wanted to assure you of the sincerity and thoughtfulness with which I had been engaging in that discussion. (btw I don't regret my choice of source: any of the sources which with I could have made my point could, individually, have been ridiculed) But please, look again at what I wrote and see that the point I was trying to make is a serious one: that some things are outside the realm of officialdom, that there blurred edges ... All the best with the various Leeds pages almost-instinct 22:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In middle of the night I suddenty remembered the terms that I was failing to find yesterday! Somewhere along the line I would have worked Folk memory and History from below in. However, now I come to look them up today I find that neither of these two articles are exactly bursting with helpful information. Ah well. almost-instinct 08:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jakeislebron

This is in response to your posting at AN/I.

In the future, you can report vandals to WP:AIV (Administrator Intervention against Vandalism), rather than ANI where you put your most recent report. Make sure, however, only to report vandals who have been properly warned and who have continued vandalizing after their final warning; for IP vandals, you should also only report them when they're currently inactive (ie, there's no use reporting an IP who hasn't edited in two or three days). You can find more information on warning vandals, and template messages with warnings, at WP:WARN. Contact me anytime at User talk:Politizer if you have any questions. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles#Assessment of References

Hiya Quantpole, I note your comments at the above. I think you are referring to an earler version. The present article states in the introduction

The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution, in respect of the UK and the British Isles, remarks, "Confused already? Keep going."

I am interested in your comments on the article as it (currently) stands. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You have now breached 3RR on Rakt - please revert your own edit. Furthermore, the other editor made edits to the material in question, without removing it. That's two editors who were happy with its presence. ðarkuncoll 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not breached 3RR, as I am sure you are well aware, as you have made the same number of reverts. The other editor made minor changes to layout, with no edits to the content. It is laughable that you deem that as a consensus, and in any case, I wasn't aware consensus could be deemed judging by whether people have edited the article. Perhaps you could point me to the guidance that says otherwise. I don't know what you are trying to do with this. No doubt it is something to do with the AfD going on, but unless you can provide some rationale for why an article regarding a village should have the squad list for a football team and their results, I see no reason why this material should remain. Quantpole (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:Assume good faith. ðarkuncoll 10:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you should throw that out, when you are accusing me for breaching a rule that I haven't. I have read the guidance, and see nothing wrong in what I said. If you are really concerned about my behaviour then by all means take it to someone to have a look at. Quantpole (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DarkScript

That article was previously proposed for deletion and the tag was removed, making the article ineligible for speedy deletion. While the creator probably didn't know it, removing the tags was OK. Kevin (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Union of Clare Students

Yep, I concur. A short mention on the main Clare College article should do, and then AfD it! Mrh30 (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of an answer...

Some wider known horror genre sites actually have their own wikiarticles: Bloody-Disgusting, Fearnet, Fangoria and are considered genre-specific RS. Other such sites without their own wikiarticles, and which may even have started as fansites, are generally accepted as reliable sources by the community (ie: Twitchfilm, Evildread, Beyondhollywood, Eatmybrains, etal) as long as they meet the WP:RS requirements of having editorial oversite: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." WP:RS does not demand nor expect a source to be large and world-reknowned (though that naturally helps). I have found it best in rescues to gather as wide a field of genre recognition as possible, as it is unreallistic to expect Rotten Tomatoes or New York Times or Roger Ebert to review every film ever made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And your inciteful question got me to thinking... so I have begun an article (still in userspace) that begins to list those genre-specific websites that have editorial oversite. Feel free to visit the work-in-progress at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources, as it may save you from some of your own digging. Its only a beginning as there is much left to add. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

Sorry for breaching Wikipedia polcy. I am new to WP and I did not understand them properly.

I need to clarify some issues and I would like to resubmit my article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out issues with references.

I would like to resubmit this article once I have sorted out the issues with the references.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first! I won't do this again.

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

re MPs expenses

Congratulations and well done on the new article on the MPs expenses controversy. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

re speedies

I've already been in contact with the author, saying we can bring them back if he can find references. Considering the vast number of articles he's made were similar (just myspaces/homepages), I didn't have hope, but they seems willing to try, so. --Golbez (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maltese Footballers

Hi there, I noticed you took away the (PROD) tags against a few of these articles, but user Jimbo online has now re-raised a deletion called an (+AfD tag), I wondered if there is anything you could do about this, I have listed them all on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Buttigieg, thanks for your help Stew jones (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I might be able to comment in the AfD debate, but I might not be on 'your' side! The reason I took the prod tags off was that you appeared to have objected to them, albeit in the wrong place. A prod is supposed to be for uncontroversial deleting, and any objection makes it controversial, so a delete would then need to be discussed first. Jimbo online hasn't done anything 'wrong' in listing the articles for delete, so if you want them to be kept, you'll have to argue it at the debate itself. The relevant criteria that you need to look at are WP:ATHLETE, WP:N and WP:V. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I may just have to throw in the towel on this one, I don't really understand all the rules and I am probably flogging a dead horse as the saying goes, I guess they will just be deleted and with me not knowing how to stand up for the articles rights, I am pretty screwed as it where Stew jones (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than thinking about whether you have to 'stand up' for the rights of these articles, maybe it would be worth thinking whether they really warrant an article. I know it may feel like someone is against you in putting these articles up for deletion when you have worked on them, but unfortunately a line has to be drawn somewhere. In the case of these articles, I think the issue is that the Maltese league may not be fully professional. However, if they have competed in something like the qualifying rounds of the Champions League then that could be a good reason for them to be notable. Also, though they may not currently be in a fully professional team, if they have played for a fully professional team in the past that would probably make them notable. Another way to show notability in this case would be if they have been talked about in the press a reasonable amount. Maltese papers may have articles about the players, which would be a good addition to the articles, and may help your case. (Bear in mind that they should actually discuss the player, rather than just be statistical information). The debate also runs for 7 days, so there is plenty of time for other people to contribute, and for you to have a look to find further info. Hope that helps. And remember, people aren't out to get you even though it can feel like it sometimes! Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment misses key substance regarding the evidence

Sir Quantpole. Some time ago a certain quote was added to AETruth that seemed to me to manifest problems with WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and common sense. The quote was removed and the purpose of the given section is to pursue some degree of consensus. Your comments at that AETruth discussion section seem to go around some substantive points that need to addressed if some greater consensus is to be pursued. I invite you to hone your comments to the substance of the question, and leave aside other additional matters.

The problem might be seen this way. The quote takes selectively one piece of data, a quote that has become highly controversial, while ignoring other data (KMPH) that contradicts its assumptions. Gage and Media (KMPH Fox 26) both invoke such professions as an asset, not as a weakness. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Helen Cattanach

Hi. I redid the Helen Cattanach page. Can you review to see if the page is now in compliance with WP:CSD#12. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit on the dodgy side in my opinion. I can see you've tried to rewrite it, but in my mind it's still looks like plagiarism of the QARANC website. It would help a lot if there were additional sources to refer to. I'm not particularly up to speed with how much something needs to be changed so that it is no longer a copy violation, so I'll leave it up to the admin who closes the speedy delete to decide. Quantpole (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added new reference links, but the QARANC page had the most info. I'll keep updating. Please check again in about 30 minutes, please. Thanks! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Tung Chung Crescent and Seaview Crescent

Sorry, I don't know what your notability tag means. I posted the articles because they are one of the largest private housing estates in Tung Chung, which is near Hong Kong International Airport. Why doesn't Caribbean Coast have notability tag as it is also one of the private estates in Tung Chung? Ricky@36 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well click on it and you will see! To be slightly more helpful, notability in wikipedia terms is defined as having significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't determine things for itself, rather it reflects the coverage a topic has received. To put it simply, if reliable sources have bothered to write about something then it's deemed 'notable' enough for an article. An important thing to note is that reliable sources do not include things like press releases or company websites. Apartment blocks are not automatically notable, even if they are big. Caribbean Coast wasn't tagged because I didn't notice it before - there's lots of articles out there you know and I haven't seen all of them! If you want more help on sourcing and whether things meet notability guidelines then feel free to ask at the Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Thanks, Quantpole (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these (http://www.emporis.com/ http://skyscraperpage.com/) the company websites? Certainly not!! I think you need to verify the sources first before putting the notability tag. I have argued this matter with many Wikipedia editors, but mostly they failed to point out the lack of notability in my articles. Ricky@36 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't a company website, but they don't really say anything about the notability of the towers (and yes I did see them before I tagged the article). If you look at the Hong Kong page on the emporis site ([1]) there are currently 7653 tall buildings. Are all of those notable? The sites may be useful for verification but that is a slightly different matter. If you are arguing this sort of thing with lots of people, maybe you should stop for a second and ask yourself if we have a point. You can also go to the Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:New contributors' help page to ask people if you are unsure about things. Quantpole (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think I am not wrong. Otherwise, most of the people I argued with failed to delete my articles finally, although they raised a lot of so-called "reasons" (or excuses). The notability just depends on the points of different people and it is unfair to the article creators. Ricky@36 (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't tried to delete any of your articles. They have been tagged because they do not explain the notability of the subject. All you have to do to show that notability is give coverage in reliable sources. Celestial Heights was kept in the AfD discussion because it had adequate sources. If there are similar sources for these other ones then great, they can be added, the tags can be removed, and the encyclopedia is improved, and we're all happy. Quantpole (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Godwin Grech

I don't know where you live, Quantpole, but it's obviously not Australia. Godwin Grech is the nost notable man in Australia at the moment, there are TV crews camped on his front lawn. He almost brought down the most popular PM in recent Australian history, now he is under criminal investigation. To suggest he is not notable is ridiculous - he's much more notable than some silly old tunnel. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at the AfD discussion. Quantpole (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Something Good (film)

I appreciate you getting involved, but it makes no sense that the page for Something Good should be deleted. 6 months is not exactly 6 years and there are plenty of pages for upcoming films that are years away. People look forward to and anticipate upcoming films. Being that this film has already completed filming, it makes absolutely no sense to remove as advertising for a film opening up on Christmas always begins in or around the preceding August. It will only be recreated in a matter of weeks. Donmike10 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going by what seems to happen at AfD discussions, where unreleased albums etc tend to be deleted. However, thinking about it a bit more, a major film is likely to have received significant coverage in advance of its release, so I was a bit hasty in prodding. Sorry about that. Quantpole (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage Vandalism

Thank you for removing it from mine! Much appreciated. Crafty (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Quantpole. You have new messages at Until It Sleeps's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied on User talk:Until It Sleeps about this. I thought I was reverting to the clean version of this page...it looked so to me in Huggle; anyhow, it's right, thanks to another editor. Newportm (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Swoopo

I have reported the disruptive editing here. I would imagine Special:Contributions/Bubbabooboo will be blocked soonish, so I wouldn't bother endlessly reverting... Nouse4aname (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you very much for reverting vandalism/trolling on my talk page. Very appreciated. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion page for the owen defence 217.202.61.14 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

History of cricket to 1725

Hi Quantpole, I've reverted your reversion about the Image of Ipocrisie poem - please see the reasons which I posted on the first occasion I made the change, on the associated Discussion page. The poem cannot be by Skelton (it refers to a book published after his death) and the lines that mention "crekette" are an insult to the Pope, not Flemish migrant weavers; I quote the relevant passage in full on the Discussion page. I have been in email contact with Heiner Gillmeister, originator of the theory that cricket started among Flemish weavers, and he does not write that this poem provides evidence for his interesting theory. (As with Florio, it is unclear that the poem even refers to the game of cricket.) Gillmeister says that he found the poem a few years ago by asking Paul Campbell of Australian National University to hunt for archaic spellings of 'cricket' on an online poetry database. I don't understand why the incorrect claim that the reference to "crekette" relates to Flemish weavers suddenly hit the media a few months ago - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I admit that it was something I had heard about a while ago so I couldn't understand why it was being removed. It would help if you gave a bit of explanation in the edit summary - even just something like "removing xxxxx, see talk page". It just helps people out, because unfortunately there are a lot of edits where text is removed that are vandalism. Also, if you find people reverting you, do what you've done here and talk to us! Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle

for rescuing my user page! Favonian (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

History of terrorism

please familiarise yourself with the case before you jump to a revert because Haberstr a known vandal will claim your actions represent a consensus for his POV push. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LSG280709 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TOC limit

Thanks for notifying me of that. It'd of been easy for you to try and miss me out on this. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

Kehz99 to Quantpole

Hey, I modified the page, come check it out hope its cool now for you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.237.201 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

By Kehz99 to quantpole

Hey nice to see you on wiki! but however there seems to be a problem with you removing the pictures that i posted on the Lagos page. I remolded the entire page to give a pretty accurate and and up to date depiction of Lagos, Nigeria, by providing pictures of many different Lagos environments including residential apartments. Sorry if anyone is offended by the pictures, but they are useful in showing Lagos as it presently is. So from here on out please do not remove the images. Thank you for your cooperation and lets proceed in unity as we continue to accurately modify and update Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehz99 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your bump

Note sure that you saw I had got round to responding to you [2] Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

reply

You admonished me for not addressing the misconception that the article Suspect guest house, Jalalabad relied solely on "primary sources".

You must have missed the detailed reply I made to these concerns on September 2nd. I addressed these again, and trimmed that second reply, for brevity.

If you disagree with my explanation as to why the memos are secondary sources I hope you will make an attempt to explain where you disagree. Geo Swan (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't 'admonish' you, and I'm sorry if that is how it came across. I would consider an admonishment to be for behavioural problems not a discussion considering sourcing of an article. We clearly disagree over the status of the sourcing for the article, as I do not consider the DOD documents to be independent sources whilst you do. I'm not sure how much more there is to say. Quantpole (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Danielle Harris

Hi, I was undoing vandalism - I don't think there are any reports of her death. I now have a warning for being unconstructive- I'm just trying to help Starlemusique (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, another edit clash ;) no worries :D

Thank you :)

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 20:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We're all different in our own little way...

I've only made one mistake but had two beers. It's the diversity of contributors that makes this place work!! RaseaC (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

msy2fla

Can you explain what has happened to my account and why? Msy2fla (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Night at 10

No worries. Thanks for stepping in and it's not my intention to edit war over this. I think this is a case of the show's producer being unhappy with the tone of the article. I'm not sure exactly what to do about this. The information is in the public domain so I don't see the problem. I've tried to write the article using a neutral point of view using reliable sources, but this subject appears to have become controversial among certain people. I'm going to add a controversy template to the articles concerned and perhaps request a third opinion. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, I've requested a third opinion and invited him to discuss the matter on the article's talk page as he claims that the references contain one-sided opinions. All this could have been avoided if only he'd used an edit summary - I wouldn't have assumed he was vandalising the page then. I suppose you can't blame him for being unhappy, I'm told that he's been fiercely criticised by a small army of fans who were unhappy with the direction of the show. But in any case hopefully we can reach some sort of agreement. Anyway thanks again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, just giving you an update on this. As I used what are considered to be reliable sources to reference the article (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, etc), I've told him that he should contact them if there's something he's not happy about. If the articles are wrong then that's an issue between the BBC and the relevant newspapers. To be fair I worked in journalism for ten years and know that any article has to be backed up with several reliable third party sources. I doubt this story would have appeared without the author being pretty certain of the facts. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Alsace-Lorraine

there is no such a country as Alsace-Lorraine. why do you place in the list of contemporary countries? --Dert45 (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have undone my undo! It seemed like Alsace-Lorraine makes more sense than France, given the history of the area, but I missed the 'today' bit at the top of the table. Quantpole (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Insulted

I'm really insulted by your last comment on WT:ENGLAND. I'm sick of your accusations that I hold a POV, and I feel that whatever I say, whatever I cite, you just stonewall it and spoil any hope of progress. I want to ask if you're opposing the proposal on personal grounds? Reason being that I find your arguments hollow, personal and without basis. If you really think that a multi-FA writing administrator has been able to circumvent WP:NPOV, then I suggest you try writing one yourself and seeing what it takes. And I feel very aggreieved that you apply one standard to Leeds and another to all other cities, and now appear to be possibly the only user of Wikipedia who thinks disamigation of an ambiguous name is confusing.

To suggest I'm pushing a POV for trying bringing a useful and fairer system to WP with a full rational and spectum of good and bad practice is downright disgraceful. I'm insulted. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I said it was POV to assume that national media is talking about the Borough, not the place. That is all, no more no less. As far as I am aware, I haven't made any other such comments in respect to you, and it was only in relation to that one comment about Shaw and Crompton. I try to keep my comments as civil as possible, and I'm sorry if this went beyond that. In reflection I should have phrased it differently. How about "Your example of Shaw and Crompton shows your opinion". Would that be any better?

I have no personal problem with you, and indeed I respect you as an editor, but you seem to get very wound up when people disagree. I absolutely believe you have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I just think you are very wrong in this particular area. Quantpole (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2009

Delivered November 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 01:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Special school

I don't see why you endorsed it. I have provided enough reasons and still you endorsed it. How about reading this? Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Rovea (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you decided to follow my voting habits then you would see that I am no inclusionist. Basically, your reasons aren't good enough, and both the AfD and DRV seem to have come to that conclusion. I suggest you let this lie now and stop badgering people. Quantpole (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not badgering people. I am trying to convince people. That's all. In Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, it does say this: Much discussion concerns not only the content of each article in question, but also "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia." Rovea (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly is that relevant to the deletion of the article? Actually, don't answer that, I'm not interested. Quantpole (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the content of the article. Why doesn't Wikipedia tolerate the differing perspectives? Rovea (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rollback use:

OK, slight miscalculation on the first edit, but the second one I had every right to revert. However, I reported him for his vandalism in the past. Check WP:AIV or his talk page for details. You might want to check all of the contributions before you get involved. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the edits today are vandalism. Questioning your use of automated tools, even if it is in a slightly brusque manner, is not vandalism. Quantpole (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll step back. But those edits truly were vandalism, replacing an article with "Die, leave it alone". Yeah that's WP:VANDALISM. I guess we'll let the admins deal with this one. I feel he should be blocked, but since I am not an admin that's not my choice. Maybe the edits today weren't vandalism, but I only misused Twinkle once today and I admitted it. The second time, I had every right to revert just to let you know. I think we have an understanding. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, however

I pretty much was wound up to begin with, wikipedia has become exceedingly annoying over the years and the VandalBots (expecally the revert & report ones) don't make things any better.

But, it only goes to prove a point... too many people in wikipedia use those bots, and too many revert indiscriminatly. I've been banned too many times to count for "vandalizing the sandbox" or "having excessive reports of vandalism from a single user who is hell bent on reporting you for vandalism" without any of these people even LOOKING at my recent contributions.

I mean, once I did excessive revisions to an article but, after getting frustrated half way through, left a comment that it should be revised. Instead of removing the comment the article was reverted, and after reverting it back I was flagged for "Starting a Revert War". Let alone how many times I've been banned for "vandalizing the sandbox." And WHY do I get flagged? Because I don't like to login and because no one seems to ever think before "reporting" 'possible vandalism' reports as vandalism.

So, yeah, I'd say 70% of my frustrations come from users like Black who "fight vandalism" by reporting everything (well, them and the upteenth vandal bot I have to add a discussion on to tell them to stop revert and reporting sandbox changes.

Everything else is just the dictatorship. I mean, last I checked, Firefox was a hellhole of NPOV. Praise here and there without a single person realizing that most of the "praise" comes from idiots who... well... hate microsoft I guess. It's HARD to get a virus from the internet... VERY HARD. I explained this, I rationalized it... I think I even applied the changes on a user account... but because of the fanboi'ism it gets reverted, saying that the praise is substatiated by forum posts.

So yeah, after having people play "3VR" on talk pages, put NPOV, claim WP:CIVILITY as a reason to revert (instead of strike out like the guidelines are [and the recent vandalbot reverts instead of stikes out]) and just about misuse every single WP flag, when I, a person who barely uses WP anymore... actually know more about what is applicable.

Though, I haven't checked to see if they updated the NPOV to accomidate for critisim pages...

But... it's just so FRUSTRATING dealing with people who are so undereducated. I remember when I actually WAS new... and someone tagged NPOV on me... I READ the page, top to bottom... I read it several times and corrected other peoples usage... but it seemed the more I pointed out what was or wasn't the more I realized that people just liked tagging pages.

Nevermind, I'm still not over alot of issues... and the vandalbot SERIOUSLY need to go. Reporting me for vandalism under blanking the sandbox is inexusable... getting BANNED for informing another user that blanking the sandbox is LEGAL, that 3VR does NOT apply to talk pages... that a user does not OWN his or her talkpage... having an administrator get involved... side with me... and get banned by another admin is inexcusable.173.171.222.251 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I get your frustration. I do a reasonable amount of 'vandal watch' and occasionally cock up and do something wrong. I think the thing with Black tonight could really have been avoided by both of you. Yeh he shouldn't have reverted you in the first place, but if you'd gone in and said, "I was just clearing my talkpage, which I don't think is vandalism." you might have got somewhere. Going in a bit fired up is unlikely to get anyway, as people are naturally defensive, so the default response is to 'attack' in return.

Unfortunately, editing from an IP gets you a lot more attention than a signed in user. There is a good reason for this, as a very high proportion of vandalism is from drive by IPs. Signing up for an account will reduce this, though you are totally within your rights not to.

In terms of the issues with the Firefox article, I'm afraid I know nothing about that. It is perhaps natural that on a project like this there is a systemic bias against windows and towards firefox. All I can suggest for this is that you tone down the rhetoric a bit and present decent reliable sources for the info you feel should be included. Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically

Your removal of the coatracky rape shit was reverted - Fragma08's 8th revert for the day. Hipocrite (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Have reported it to the 3RR board. Not sure how many reverts you were up to, so sorry if it lands you in it too. Quantpole (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

For taking another look, considering what the others had to say, and moving your vote and closing the law firm AfD early. I have great respect here for those, like you, who are able to do that. So many don't seem to have it in them.

Wanted to get back to you on the interesting substantive point your raise. I'll point you to the key language I keep in mind when considering the depth of coverage of an org. An org is notable "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.... The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage ... is not sufficient to establish notability.:

So, the first thought is either one needs a certain depth of coverage, or if the coverage is not so deep then a bunch of mentions that are less deep are acceptable.

As to the issue of what is "trivial or incidental," we are told, in part, that it would include: "publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest." And later on it further explains what trivial coverage is, saying it is things "such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories."

Don't know if that helps ... Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problems, and thanks for your note. My main concerns with articles like this, where coverage is marginal, is that every scrap of info that can be found is presented, which probably doesn't give a very balanced view of the company. When more substantial coverage is present, the info can be chosen a bit more selectively. There is also likely to be more general information, with which a balanced article can be created.

It was a similar sort of issue with the whole bilateral relations saga, where every interaction between two countries was introduced into an article, with no discernment as to what is important or not. This is where wikipedia works against itself - in an effort to 'prove' that something is important, sources which barely mention the subject in passing are used and the article ends up being worse (imo) than when it was more poorly sourced. Anyway, thanks for giving me the opportunity to spout forth! ;-)

Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting observations. Which prompts a short digression. Well then, what do you make of this issue (and I realize I tread on dangerous territory). If there are in fact a number of RS articles on subject A, and 90 per cent of what they say about subject A is negative, should our article reflect that balance?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We should generally reflect what sources say. If sources are negative, then we should reflect that. We don't have to give both sides of an argument equal weight for the sake of fairness, but rather give the issues the same approximate weight as reliable sources do. This is particularly true for fringe science and the like. If the weight of reliable sources say some idea is completely kooky, then the article should also say that. In terms of BLPs then it is a bit different, in that other policies can come into play, such as BLP1E, but even so, if someone meets all our requirements for inclusion and the sources are overwhelmingly negative then that's what our article should be. Obviously, in all of this the way things are phrased should be as neutral and encyclopedic as possible, but neutral doesn't mean things shouldn't be 'positive' or 'negative' (however they may be defined). Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerto in G Major

Note: Significant changes have been made to the article being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerto in G Major since your last comments. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2009

Delivered December 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)