User talk:Straw Cat
- 1 Francis Bacon
- 2 October 2008
- 3 April 2009
- 4 House Holmes
- 5 Death of Baby P
- 6 Murder of Baby P
- 7 Smith
- 8 Denis MacShane
- 9 George Bonanno
- 10 The Blitz
- 11 Boyle's nationality
- 12 youre so vain
- 13 Hari
- 14 Disambiguation link notification
- 15 Disambiguation link notification for January 18
- 16 Battle of Mortimer's Cross
- 17 Hetty Baynes
- 18 Cogito ergo sum
- 19 Disambiguation link notification for July 9
- 20 Disambiguation link notification for March 15
- 21 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 22 Bernard Shaw
Thanks for your contribution to the Francis Bacon discussion on his importance in Philosophy! Arion 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your interesting comments about the Ascended Master material - I have been a little worried about the way some of the Bacon article has been leaning! I'm glad the fake death stuff has been removed - although I fear it's only a matter of time before someone reverts. Also worried about contributor postings under different user names - I thought this wasn't permitted under wiki rules? Contaldo80 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Independence Day (film), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 15:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --aktsu (t / c) 17:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry if I offended you when I said the info regarding Sherlock Holmes in the House article was "redundant" (I realized later that it may have been a bit mean). However, the info you added, and later re-added, is not backed up by a third-party reference (see WP:NOR). The problem is that you compare the working methods of both characters, but there is no reference that indicates House's method is inspired by Holmes'. I have removed the info from the article, and I would very much appreciate it if you would contact me first (hopefully with a reliable source to indicate the info), before you put it back in there, to avoid a ping-pong effect. Thank you very much.--Music26/11 12:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Death of Baby P
Hi, I noticed you undid my edits there. Maybe you could contribute to the discussion in talk and we could try to find a compromise. Because my edits were intended to make the article conform to WP:NPOV, one of our most important policies. See you in talk, I hope. --John (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Murder of Baby P
Your addition to the Smith article has again been reverted by the suject, or what looks very like the subject and a comment of libelous, please do not replace it again. If you insist you want to add itI will open a thread for discussion at the BLP noticeboard,m please let me know if you want to readd it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- The latest comments regarding libel are entirely false and Straw Cat and myself fully addressed all concerns regarding accuracy of the content. Just because the user said it was libellous does not make it so and I would like to commend Straw Cat for his attempts to find a compromise over the issue and the high quality of his/her editing on the page in question.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you're at all familiar with libel law in England - or even in the State of Florida where WP's servers are based - but truth is a complete defence to a libel suit. Both Smith (as a journalist - and former chair of PEN) - and MacShane (former President of the National Union of Journalists) know this well, as do I, so if the complaining editor is Smith, it's pure bluster. The expenses issue was and still is a major political and ethical issue in the UK. It involved an attempted cover-up and amazing hypocrisy by the MPs in question. The piece in the Guardian was an early contribution to that debate, clearly echoing MacShane's own comments that it was all mass hysteria; it may be now embarrassing for her, especially in the light of the Commons report about female expenses staff being disgracefully bullied as reported in the Guardian (not yet a tabloid, BTW), and the Commons Standards Committee (not the BNP, by the way) finding the charges against him serious enough to refer it to Inspector Knacker. The editor claiming to be Smith claims she stands by the piece (without sources); why should she now want to, or be allowed to censor a reference to it in the Smith article (the rest of which frankly reads like a fan site) that confines itself strictly to a NPOV summary of the source?Straw Cat (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
IMO it is not the actual libel laws, it is the fact that a subject is so upset and disputes your addions so much as to be roused to remove it and deny it and claim libel. I can only suggest if you want to continue inserting the disputed allegations, which appear to just allege she is a liar ( what is the real honest value of a weak claim that she s a liar?) which is apparently strongly disputed by the subject, I would say it is clearly a controversial addition, I am going off line now, if you want to continue to desire to assert the claim, will open a WP:BLPN discussion tomorrow. Regards, or you can of course open a thread there to see if consensus supports your desired addition.Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Straw Cat, you make some excellent points. I've raised my concerns about the false libel allegations on the Denis MacShane talk page and it would be of significant value if you you could share your knowledge there. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite a lot of content removal and possible COI edits going on at the MacShane article. I've dealt with everything so far but if you could keep an eye on the article too it would be most useful. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I've updated the information and added lots of references to back up the claims on this page. Could you please remove the "disputed" tag from it now? Thanks!! Dustynyfeathers (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- ? I wasn't aware I added one. Someone else... I stand by my comment though.Straw Cat (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do not change or manipulate (or plain reverse the meaning of) sources. British strategy WAS NOT based on morale breaking. One silly memo is proof of nothing. Portal decided strategy and it was concerned with destroying the economic base. Dapi89 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your obsession with adding his nationality is, but if you would actually read the talk page closely, there are sources that describe him as Anglo-Irish, but also sources that describe him as Irish, English, and British. Choosing what one source says as opposed to what other sources say is violating WP:NPOV. Having no nationality makes the article neutral and avoids conflicts, so please stop adding Irish and Anglo-Irish because you're only causing disruption by doing so. Also, please don't "shout" in your edit summaries, especially when telling me not to. That's a bit hypocritical. --John of Lancaster (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hardly consensus then. Please assume good faith. And sorry if you don't get irony.
- Irritating though it might be, it keeps getting changed, and it clearly needs outside arbitration.Straw Cat (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being as intelligent as you. There are multiple sources claiming multiple nationalities and having no nationality makes the article meet WP:NPOV and avoids conflicts between POV pushers. Adding a nationality won't end conflicts, just cause more in the future. --John of Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
youre so vain
im confused, the source was a book which i cited in the article. im new to this, what did i do wrong?
by the way, carly wrote the song with her boyfriend Daniel Armstrong in mind. i dont know how this is a mystery, how she felt about him was common knowledge to her inner circle in the late 60's
I apologize for all the questions. After thinking about it for a second, I think I answered my own question. The issue isn't with the book I cited, but whether there is any source for what I added to the article, more precisely, any information about the bartender who made the claims. Who he is, where, when, why did he make the claim, and who did he make it to. Without sources, it's about as good as a rumor. Well as it turns out, I managed to get some info from the bartender. It turns out, he claims to have known who the song was written about since it was written. The problem is, the support for his claim is personal knowledge and not easy to prove using any current sources in print or on the internet. After hearing his evidence, there is not the slightest doubt about the identity of the song's subject. I'm not sure how that evidence will satisfy wikipedia's criteria. Ironically, Wikipedia allows all that content regarding who the sibject of the song is "not."
(The article accuses David R of being a sockpuppet - and it is unhelpful to readers not to explain what sockpuppetry is here
I would give you a WP:3RR warning but I am sure you are aware of the guideline and aware that you have made three reverts in less than an hour, another will mean I will have to report you, please don't - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- "The article does not mention sockpuppets". - How about "You see, someone using the identity of "David Rose" was editing entries on Wikipedia in ways that were malicious to some journalists but convivial to Johann Hari. It was suspected that this "David Rose" might be a sock puppet used by Hari himself." - Cheers Straw Cat (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, "our article" currently does not mention sockpuppets, so as such we don't need to explain the word. It seems the person writing that article was a bit uninformed about wikipedia and appears to have been using sockpuppet in place of pseudonym, which we are all allowed. I see the SP Investigation has as yet not blocked other accounts. I don't think we should speculate too much on this or repeat unverified claims from opinionated columns. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
You said: "The article does not mention sockpuppets". I pointed out (on your talk page as is the usual convention; puzzled that you have removed it) : "How about "You see, someone using the identity of "David Rose" was editing entries on Wikipedia in ways that were malicious to some journalists but convivial to Johann Hari. It was suspected that this "David Rose" might be a sock puppet used by Hari himself." You respond: " It seems the person writing that article was a bit uninformed about wikipedia and appears to have been using sockpuppet in place of pseudonym, " You will see from other references that he is far from uniformed. You and I use pseudonyms but not maliciously - that is the key difference, and I don't understand why you are so anxioust to prevent casual readers of the article from being informed about this? Straw Cat (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am just keeping our discussion in one location so it is easier to see in its entirety, you can just post here and I am watching and will reply. Its all a bit unverified and confused. As in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/David_r_from_meth_productions the sockpuppet report, not actioned and perhaps won't be actioned. Its enough that the subject has held his hands up to editing negatively the articles of other journos without us naval gazing about the definition of "malicious sockpuppetry". Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Empire of the Sun (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaws (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.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Empire of the Sun (film), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evelyn Sharp, Baroness Sharp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haringey (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.
Can we compromise on Butler's title? I agree it reads far better with a single title than both, and that being the case, I suggest Wiltshire as more locally relevant. NHF? PS, see you in the Tavern some time?! -joke. Thanks for the tidying. Basket Feudalist 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- As someone who has lived in the area, I’d say Wiltshire is a long way away from north Herefordshire. But the clincher for me is the Butler family are far more famous world-wide (and therefore for readers of the encyclopedia) as earls of Ormonde … as you will know a later earl was one of the prime movers of the Irish confederacy of the 17th century.Straw Cat (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with you that the court case material on the Hetty Baynes page is completely out of proportion. At present it amounts to two paragraphs whereas her marriage takes up two lines. I am not convinced that it is suitable material to be on there at all, but if it needs to be then a couple of lines in total on the court case should be sufficient. Do you want to have a go at trimming it? If so, I will support. Bradka (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I was using boldface for all phrase variants in the "Descartes' writings" section to make it easy to contrast and compare. Do you think it would be sufficient clarification if I included in the lead para of the section:
For consistency with the Principia Philosophiae (1644) section, I've indicated the italics with [italics in original] and reinstated the boldface. I also added a formatting note in the lead para of the section. humanengr (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited For Whom the Bell Tolls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epigraph (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trevor Howard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Mischief (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.
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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to clog up the article talk page, but as you ask how we approach the upgrading of the article, the skeleton here may make our approach clearer. First a draft timeline, from which we seek to cover all points, secondly a diversion for odds and ends that might or might not be useful for the article, and finally all the cited information from the existing article, all of which needs to be taken into account in the overhaul. This is my (and I think others') usual approach when working on an article with FAC in view, and it has worked, uncontroversially, so far. I have to admit that we have yet to work out a structure for the Works section, though I am leaning towards following, more or less, the structure of Judith Evans's 2003 The Politics and Plays of Bernard Shaw, though I have not yet broached the matter. Any suggestions on this will be gratefully received. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 18:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)