User talk:Whizz40

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

Whizz40, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Whizz40! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify your reasoning for your recent deletions from the Democracy Article[edit]

Dear Whizz,

You have recently deleted from the History section of the Democracy Article, the fact that the American state was founded as a "representative form of government". Could you please explain your reasoning for this deletion? It seems to me that this fact is very relevant here, is it not? Why not? Could you please document why you might feel that this fact might be inappropriate in an article section about the historical development of democracy at the founding of the United States?

You have also deleted from that section, the fact that the American Revolution was the very first time in modern history that monarchism was successfully replaced with a representative form of government, apparently claiming that this fact was an "over simplification", and therefore, I would assume, somehow misleading. Could you please also explain your reasoning for that deletion as well? In exactly what way do you feel that this fact in this section might somehow be a "misleading oversimplification"? Could you please document your feelings to that effect?

Your clarification of your reasoning for these two deletions would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scott, it's not that I disagree with your points, I'm editing to maintain the quality of the article overall. There is a temptation for each editor to add the point they are more interested in or feel most strongly about. The aspects you raise are discussed in other parts of the article, and I think the remaining edits we made are good and add to the quality of the article. --Whizz40 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Whizz, The one event which seems to me to be quite significant, but which you have deleted was the American event of 1776 which marked the first time in recent history that a successful overthrow of a monarchical system occurred, followed by its replacement with a democratically elected leadership, and that this political shift was then followed by numerous other similar shifts towards democracy throughout the world. I could find no other discussion of this particular event anywhere else in the article, and it seems to me that it was a somewhat relevant historical event, worthy of noting in an article section on the history of democracy. Could you please specifically explain why you might feel that this event was either not "important" enough, or why it might somehow pose as too much of a "misleading over simplification", to warrant inclusion in this article?
While Americans may have fumbled around a great deal since 1776, I don't think that there are many historians who would tell you 1776 was irrelevant to the development of democracy in the world. How specifically might you feel that inclusion of a reference to this event in the article would "degrade" the quality of this article?
Other than this, I am satisfied with our edits.
Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Scott, I think it's fair to say the ideas of the revolution and rights conferred by the Constitution developed over time. At the same time democracy was developing of its own accord in many countries around the world. We need to be careful not to promote one form of democracy over others. Nor to overstate the influence of events in one part of the world on others. Successful overthrow of a monarchical system in not essential to democracy; development of a constitutional monarchy can be just as effective, as has been the case in many countries.
Regarding your latest change, this is covered in the previous section of the article. The Parliament of England was long-standing before this and was more powerful than the monarch by this time. The most recent edit clarifies this. --Whizz40 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As you will, the American revolution for democracy was irrelevant to democracy. I will allow you to rest your case, though I would ask you to consider your own national background, and whether or not you might personally be favoring one form of democracy over another. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Scott, we could add a point about the Bill of Rights in 1791 guaranteeing a number of personal freedoms and legal rights. I don't think many other countries would attribute their own revolutions to that of another. For France at least, the financial impact of their actions to support the American revolution was probably a more significant driver of their revolution than cultural or social influence. I have relatives on both sides of the Atlantic some with dual citizenship so I am indifferent as long as the content is neutral, as it should be in an encyclopaedia. Since we share the same language we share the same wikipedia :) --Whizz40 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit reversal clarification[edit]

I inadvertently mangled the summary explanation for my reversal of your recent good faith edit to the United States Constitution article, so I thought I'd leave a note of clarification for you here. Going by MOS/L I concluded that the article you linked to, Presidential system#Criticism and disadvantages, is not the most specific topic appropriate to, nor is it specifically about criticisms of the United States Constitution. Drdpw (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drdpw, makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the Making[edit]

Thanks for your edits in and around Parliament in the Making — great minds think alike. Note that I have contacted User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK), suggesting that WMUK organise some events for these anniversaries. If you're based in the UK, I hope that we might meet there. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, please keep me in the loop. Whizz40 (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your latest large updates but I'm afraid I felt I had to revert them as it seems that too much of the phrasing was cut and paste from external sources. I have put an example on the article's talk page. This is policed quite strictly on Wikipedia - please see WP:COPYVIO for guidance. Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Andrew, I clicked too hastily, before I had written what I actually had in mind, which I shouldn't have done. Written now in my sandbox is what I had in mind at the time. Welcome any thoughts on this. Whizz40 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, I wondered if you had a chance to review my edits to close out this discussion. Happy if you want to leave it to others but no one has picked it up from DYK yet, and would be good to close it out. Whizz40 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Simon de Montfort's parliament[edit]

Hello Whizz40. I thought moving this page would be uncontroversial, but of course happy to have a discussion on the talk page. Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Moonraker: with the additional context given on the talk page and having had time to look through the other edits, I support the article move and your improvements to the other articles. Whizz40 (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
p.s. I read up on Wikipedia:Citation templates and found they are neither encouraged nor discouraged (but consensus is encouraged), and read up on the usage of realise vs realize here and at Oxford English Dictionary#Spelling which I found interesting. Whizz40 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

parliament in the making[edit]

Hi Whizz40, I'm no expert on these topics, and recognise that history is much more complex than a table might suggest, but my aim has been to offer some clarity via these tables, so thanks for your help with tidying my clumsy starting suggestions. Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yadsalohcin, the initial table draft was the insightful part. For the latest additions to See also, these are already linked in the article and I recall the usual approach WP:SEEALSO is to use this section for links to articles not linked in the main body. Only mentioning because my sense in this case is a shorter list will be more useful for readers if the other links are available in context in the table above. Whizz40 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination[edit]

Hi Whizz40, while we were discussing Simon de Montfort's parliament, I noticed that you were thinking of nominating it for WP:GAN. If you go ahead with that, would you be interested in doing a quid pro quo? I nominated my article Rwandan Revolution at GA today, and I could do the review of Simon de Montfort's parliament if you would be able to review mine. No worries if you'd rather not, or if you decide not to go ahead with GA anyway, just thought I'd ask :) Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, thanks for the thought and it looks like an interesting and important article. In terms of GA review, I have not done one before and and am not familiar with the topic area; I realise experience with either is not necessary but I think if you let it run through the normal process, you might get someone with specialist knowledge of either GA reviews and/or the topic area which could produce a better article in the end. Whizz40 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I read through the article last night and read the good article reviewing guide and i will be able to review your article. In terms of SdeM's Parliament, i will nominate it. Some medieval articles have been picked up quickly, such as Magna Carta, but that is a more prominent topic although longer. If it does get picked up quickly then feel free to pick another article for a QPQ. Whizz40 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I see you have nominated Simon de Montfort's parliament now, so I'll wait until next week, if it's not done by then I'll pick it up for you, otherwise I'll pick another one as you suggest. Thanks again!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Simon de Montfort's Parliament[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simon de Montfort's Parliament you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amakuru -- Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to you and the other contributors on a well written and interesting article! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Simon de Montfort's Parliament you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Simon de Montfort's Parliament for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amakuru -- Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Women's Boat Race[edit]

Hi Whizz40, not sure what your interest in the subject is, but it would be useful to discuss how best to integrate the article(s) with the existing men's stuff before making changes which may impact hundreds of pages (e.g. to the Boat Race template). If you feel like talking, let me know! Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, happy to discuss and defer, was just being bold. Any inital thoughts? By the way, per the other discussion, the 1929 women's race would be notable as the first on the tideway. Whizz40 (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Cool. I'm away from home (although as you can tell, still keeping "tabs" on this year's events), but would welcome further discussion on how best to go forward with the individual women's race articles. Are you aware of any decent sources for each of the races? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sources seem initially illusive, one of the Telegraph or BBC pieces says the lack of a boat house in the early years hampered record keeping and the 1927 article Gareth E Kegg created references contemporary news stories. Gareth, welcome any thoughts. I have another project awaiting consensus on an article move, to turn List of British inventions and discoveries into a timeline, so will switch to that if the move goes ahead. Adding 1927 to the template in the way it is seemed to make sense given it appears to be the only one at the moment. If there were many women's race articles then there are plenty of solutions like listing by year in a section like the men, or tweak the existing section to a format like 1927 (W) where the W links to the women's article, or put a hatnote on each of the men's articles and link only to those in the template. No strong views on these, there are probably other ways too (could even have one article for each year like 2015). And there's plenty that could be done on the main women's boat race article which would consolidate the gains in one place. Some ideas for the discussion but I probably can't do this work myself so happy to leave it for now and/or defer to others. Whizz40 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe we should be able to find references for each of the previous women's races and create separate articles for them. From 2015 hence all articles should be men and women combined to reflect the newly welcome parity, to do this for the past would suggest a false equality when the women were really, regrettably, an afterthought. Coverage of previous women's boat races is maddeningly sporadic, patronizing, and confusing. A 1973 Times article refers to the 10th consecutive race, but several 1930s articles refer to a race only between Newham College and the London School of Medicine. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

TRM, given sources indicate the 1929 race and possibly the 1930 race were held on the Tideway, would the following small change be beneficial to the main page ITN wording. Whizz40 (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In rowing, Oxford's men's crew (pictured) and women's crew defeat the respective Cambridge crews in the first Boat Race and Women's Boat Race to be held together on the Tideway.
I think it might, but it's so unpopular and about to slip of the main page, I'm reluctant to draw any further attention to it. In the meantime, I've created Women's Boat Race 2014. A stub, sure, but are we happy that Gareth's suggestion to create articles for the women's races prior to 2015 is a good one? It's not a bad start (although I say so myself....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and does anyone care to email The Boat Race Company Ltd to get an understanding about the asterisk next to the 1929 and 1930 races? I'm assuming they now consider them unofficial? But then I looked at the official race report for the 2014 race which knocks two wins off the Oxford score, stating "40 wins to Cambridge versus 27 to Oxford" prior to the race. The website does have a NUMBER OF ISSUES! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree articles on the women's boat race prior to 2015 are worthwhile. I would say go ahead and email them to ask for clarification. Separately, there is a comment on Talk:Henley Boat Races#1935 women's boat race that the 1935 race was on the Tideway; that may be the other year that the CAM magazine article is referring to, along with 1929, leaving the 1930 location unknown as per the Telegraph article. It may be worth emailing the authors of these articles and British rowing for clarification and potential sources at the same time. Whizz40 (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I love these moments when we become real historians! This is what makes Wikipedia so special for me. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. TRM, in the 2015 and 2014 Women's articles, should the previous/location of the women's race be linked to Henley Boat Races rather than Henley Royal Regatta, the commanlity being the H Boat Races use the Regatta course (but in reverse direction)? Whizz40 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to roll up your sleeves and get stuck in. It would be helpful to generate a comprehensive article (e.g. 2013 or 2014) which we could then base the other 65-odd articles on. We're not that far off as far as I can see with the Women's Boat Race 2013 one. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST[edit]

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

Tunisia and system of government[edit]

@Whizz40: Hello, I have seen that you noticed my edit on parliamentary system, about Tunisia. I need a third opinion from you, since me and another editor entered into a conflict about its system of government. The user in question (Fumehime) says it's a parliamentary republic while I say it's a semi-presidential republic, premier-presidential system subtype. I have provided articles of political scientists and scientific papers that mention its semi-presidential government, while the other user points to news articles which vaguely describe a parliamentary functioning of government, confusing parliamentary confidence with parliamentary system. I even asked him, if he could mention me an article from political scientists, with published work, who describe Tunisia operating under a parliamentary system of government instead of a semi-presidential one; no answer from the user until now. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no view either way so I started a consolidated discussion at Talk:Tunisia#Tunisian system of government. Whizz40 (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Special drawing rights[edit]

The previous layout wasn't in size order from left to right, because JPY had a higher weighting than FRF from 1986-1998. The column order should nevertheless be maintained in order to give a sense of continuity, and allow a visual merge from DEM and FRF into EUR. But it's obviously incorrect to imply a split from EUR into EUR and CNY. It makes more sense to show CNY as an extra column, making it visually obvious that this is a discontinuity, the first true addition to the basket since 1981. – Smyth\talk 12:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

All fair points. If you prefer the new format then fine by me. Let's see if it sticks. Whizz40 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Whizz 40, what problems my editions have?[edit]

Whizz 40, what problems my editions have?

An editor with an different ideology who attempts to improve the Wikipedia and demonstrate that is impartial, normal and that is not manipulated by cultural New left of the 21st century is not a vandal. - 201.81.64.163 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC).

Are my editions have English troubles or have serious troubles related by Conspiracy theory? 201.81.64.163 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:201.81.64.163. Whizz40 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Women's Boat Race[edit]

The article Women's Boat Race you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Women's Boat Race for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of voting rights in the United States[edit]

Hi Whizz40. Since you created Timeline of voting rights in the United States, I'd appreciate if you took a look at what I just posted on the talk page at Talk:Timeline of voting rights in the United States. —METS501 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Action Fraud.svg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Action Fraud.svg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

File:National Ballistics Intelligence Service logo.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:National Ballistics Intelligence Service logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Nation state". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 March 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Nation state, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)