User talk:Twospoonfuls
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Stuff
Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your {{POV}} concerns about this article Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.:Dc76 06:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I didn't tag that page, nor do I have any strong views on it.Twospoonfuls 08:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I know it was not you, from the "history" of the article. But I asked eveyone who editted it, because we can use this opprtunity to address more issues. I take your answer as you don't have anything to add for now. Whenever you think you have something to share, you are always welcome.:Dc76 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greek Revival architecture
Could you indicate which facts come from where in the references you have listed, as the article will shortly be expanded, and will need the inline cites to the refs to meet criteria. Thanks. Giano 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- They're of general background interest, delete them if you though they're important studies of the field. Also I note that Crook opines the first Greek building in Britain was the Doric landscape temple at Hegley (see p. 96).Twospoonfuls 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gallery of Penguin Classics
Glad you think the project is a good idea, so did I when I started it, but apparently it doesn't belong on Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons (I think!) so you will probably see, as I have done, your additions get removed. Perhaps if we get enough people interested we can keep the page...Regards, GiantSnowman 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tags
You added a tag to the Matthew Taylor page alleging that material was unsourced, without specifying which material was referred to. After being prompted by another editor, you then specified a phase you objected to. Another editor then pointed out to you that the material was indeed sourced in the existing text. Perhaps you just missed it. You then returned for a third time and added another tag without specifying the phases it related to, athough it appears from the tag that you dispute the veracity of the source, the New Statesman. If the disputed material has been published elsewhere (as this has) then a dispute as to its veracity should be properly taken up with that source, not in Wikipedia. When material has been previously published in a notable publication such as the New Statesman, it is perfectly proper for editors to use it as a source in Wikipedia. When adding tags, editors are expected to also add their reasons on the Talk page. Without those reasons, the reason for the tag is unclear to others, and can initiate edit wars. Adding tags in these circumstances can also be regarded as vandalism. 217.44.82.218 11:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you being deliberately stupid? Firstly my initial object has not been address, no verification has been offered for the claims that Taylor failed his O Levels 3 times or "eloped". Citing the New Statesman article as a source is simply laughable, that article adds no new information and merely refers to the comment on the Wikipedia article itself; are you familiar with the fallacy of infinite regress? If you a referring to some other verifiable source for these "facts" then no I haven't noticed it, where is it? Since my objections haven't been address I have every justification in putting a disputed tag on the article and said as much in the description field on my last edit. The Matthew Taylor page is an utter disgrace; not only is it factually unsubstantiated, but "jocular" comparisons with Adrian Mole and value laden terms such as "ferociously anti-semitic" and "discredit" have no place in an encyclopaedia. Since you seem to take a proprietorial interest in this page I suggest that you clean up what is ostensively a piece of political PR that masquerades as knowledge rather than attempting to chastise its critics. Lastly, my record of contribution to Wikipedia is available for inspection by all; I don't think I need brook accusations of vandalism from someone whose only contribution is to write the above screed. Twospoonfuls 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- The New Statesman article does not refer to the comment on the Wikipedia page. It is precisely the other way around. The Wiki phase is based on what was PREVIOUSLY published in a noted and reputable journal. The source. You refer to your track record, and others can see that also. What it includes is a series of valuable contributions on ancient Greek history. But in this area you strayed into domestic UK politics, yet seem unable to comprehend that those who venture into the kitchen must be able and willing to take the heat. Name-calling of the STUPID variety (a breach of Wiki policy) wins you no friends and alienates potential allies. So keep up the invective. It discredits only yourself. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but .... you know the rest. And I have no proprietorial interest in the page, unless being glad that Taylor has departed Downing St qualifies. However, your partisan interest in defending Taylor is becoming apparent to all. 217.44.82.218 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
 |
On December 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kalos inscription, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Hello Twospoonfuls and thanks for creating this interesting article. Ghirlandajo was the kind soul who nominated it for DYK. In future, feel free to self-nominate, as the vast majority of our articles are self-nominated. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
