User talk:Timtrent/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for User:Timtrent (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 4 >>

Contents

King George's Field template

Hi Tim, I hope you don't mind me messing around with the template. I adjusted the code to allow the county categories to be included too. Actually, my main reasoning was so the lists in the King George's Field category would be classified under the first letter of their county rather than under L for list. However, as I plodded throught the changes i noticed two oddities. Your choice for greater london over London while correct leads to the problem that there is no greater london category. I left it as London for now. I was surprised you had the two usages of Avon too. While i realise that avon was the original county when the fields were inorgorated i don't understand why they would still be classified as being in Avon. Shouldn't this just be a footnote or not even mention at all? David D. (Talk) 03:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mind? Heavens no. I think this is an excellent idea, and precisely what the template is for.
As for the county use, I fear it was "Hmm, now precisely where shall I put this?", and I regret I was inconsistent, in a way. I tried to thijnk about county boundaries being moved for political reasons and thus the most static "place" to catalogue. And I struggled. If you feel like being bold since you appear to be a better geographer thna I you will get no objections from me.  :)
While you are looking at this, do you think you could bring a wise eye to the mediation cabal case about individual locations and categorising them? I've featured it at the Village Pump with a request for people to assist, but it appears to be attracting "no takers". Someone else who is interested, such as you, may be able to assist in the resolution.
Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I probably won't be adding new fields this is a little outside my area. i did see your note on the village pump which is why I looked at the category in the first place. My first observation was that everything was categorised on L. One thing led to another. It took me a while to figure out the template but it is an excellent idea for this class of repetitive article. Now you can change them all just by tweeking the template, sweet.
I am no geographer but I would rename the Antrim and Down articles. I have rarely heard of them referred to without the County prefix and it might cause confusion with town names (Antrim being an obvious example of this). With regard to Avon i would definitely go with the new county boundaries, many people will have no clue about Avon and it is confusing to see a county name in the title but then categorised as a different name in the text.
With respect to you disagreement with categorization, I might be unclear on what you were trying to do. I think you had added a the KGVF category to each town that had a KGVF. Personally i think this is probably a bad idea since towns will have too many categories if such a style is used. It would seem more sensible to write a generic paragraph linking to the main article on KGVF's and add that to each town under their sport facilities or leisure facilities subheading. If you wish to have all the towns together an extension of your list would seem to make more sense. You currently have the counties listed. You might then have an indent and list the towns for each county. What do you think of that? David D. (Talk) 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I had indeed added a category to each town. taking your concept that a town might have too many categories, my first reaction was agreement. Then I asked myself "Why does it matter how many categories a town has?" My rationale is that a category is merely a way of indexing, and actually the more ways to index the merrier. I am now in two minds and am considering it. The generic paragraph is already there.
The indented list is attractive until we note that there are 471 of the little things.
Avon I will sort out,and the others I am in process of renaming. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I also notice when looking at your list that you have Westmoreland and many of the Welsh ones are out dated too. i can see your dilema here. Again I'd probably go with the modern and then mention the historical context as footnotes in the each article. You may also wish to consider including a navigation box at the bottom of each county list. This will make it very easy to browse from one county to another without having to9 return to the original list each time. I have set up somthing based of your original list in a sandbox (see User:David D./sandbox4.
King George V Fields in the United Kingdom

England: Bedfordshire | Berkshire | Buckinghamshire | Cambridgeshire | Cheshire | Cornwall | County Durham | Cumbria | Derbyshire | Devon | Dorset | Essex | Gloucestershire | Greater London | Hampshire | Herefordshire | Hertfordshire | Huntingdonshire | Kent | Lancashire | Leicestershire | Lincolnshire | Merseyside | Middlesex | Kent | Norfolk | Northamptonshire | Nottinghamshire | Oxfordshire | Rutland | Shropshire | Somerset | Staffordshire | Suffolk | Surrey | Sussex | Warwickshire | Westmorland | Wiltshire | Worcestershire | North Yorkshire

Northern Ireland: Armagh | County Antrim | County Down | Fermanagh | Londonderry | Tyrone

Scotland: North Lanarkshire | Renfrewshire | West Lothian

Wales: Anglesey | Brecknockshire | Cardiganshire | Carmarthenshire | Denbyshire | Flintshire | Glamorgan | Caernarvonshire | Merionethshire | Montgomeryshire | Pembrokeshire | Radnorshire
Do you think this or something similar would be useful? I'll think more on the categories vs list. David D. (Talk) 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent concept. Can it be incorporated automatically somehow into the KGVF template? I am somewhat of a novice in these matters. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That should be no problem. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For your referenmce i created a specific template for you to use at Template:King George's Fields. Any changes to the template can be made there. I hope you enjoy using this. David D. (Talk) 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


More on categories

I just noticed that you have categorised all the county lists in the Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom and the Category:Lists of United Kingdom parks. Wouldn't it make more sense to categorise just the King George's Fields and the List of King George V Playing Fields articles in those categories? Strangely, i find you have not categorised either othe those articles in those categories. What is the rationale you are working with here? David D. (Talk) 03:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Each individual field is constituted as a charity, even if it is as small as a couple of acres. This was done in order to seek to guarantee each field's use in perpetuity (a very odd UK legal term) as a place of recreation. However the King George's Fields article itself refers to many charities rather than (I recall) being a charity itself. I think you are right that the "list of lists" should be categorised as a charity. I am now unsure about the main article giving details of the history (etc) of the fields as a whole. Interested in your opinion. A second head, as we always see, brings clarity of thought. Fiddle Faddle 07:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that is a complicated mess. So technically each field should be added to the UK charity category, however, i do bulk at the idea of doing this from the perspective of having so many fields in that category. In a way, by categorising the county lists, you are already half way between having the one master list at one extreme compared to having every field at the other. In this respect, I think simplifying to one entry as the master list might be the best choice. I'm certainly not going to revert your work, just throwing out some food for thought. David D. (Talk) 22:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This is why I have added the lists per se as charities because they are effectively lists of charities as well as of locations with fields. The whole area is one large anomaly. My challenge is that, while it is certainly notable it is also minority interest. Were this 1936 it would be in the forefront of every UK editor's mind, but this is a few years later :). I'm giving this whole area substantial thought prior to continuing. I'm just rather sad that a wholly unrelated category Category:Fairtrade settlements is going to be deleted because of the actions of the editor who had rather fixed ideas about things. Fiddle Faddle 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Gurney

{{tone}} Wording like "major positive influence in the UK and beyond" is not appropriate for a professional encyclopedia. "Major" is akin to "very," "extremely," and other impossible-to-quantify qualifiers. In the UK and beyond; where else exactly? Why isn't he mentioned. This is weasel word-y. It's a fine start, sure, but it's not professionally written. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we can solve that easily enough. I think you will find no-one writes professionally for Wikipedia, btw, but I take your point happily. Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
And thank you No worries; you're good. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Squeaky rat

They are not common. The article is not named Toy rat. I would like you to remove the prod template. There are similar articles (same length) for practical joke toys. User:Yy-bo 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree with you. And that is one virtue of wikipedia. We may disagree. As you see the PROD has rules which you are wholly at liberty to follow. If you can assert notability sufficient to show me that you are correct I will form a different view. If you simply remove the PROD without convincing me I will nominate it for peer review at Articles for Deletion where it will meet strong peer scrutiny and may survive or may be deleted. I am content with either outcome since it is by consensus. If you feel strongly that it should remain I advise substantial improvement, including citations. As the article stands I am afraid I do not view it as meeting the criteria for inclusion. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, a common misconception is that one article serves as a precedent for other articles. This is absolutely not the case. Every article on Wikipedia is an individual entity that must stand up to community scrutiny on its own merits. While it is always interesting to see other articles there is the danger that they will then have their own weaknesses exposed. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
(or a subsequent AfD if the prod is removed)... etc. I perceive your communication as threatening. It does not make sense to explain to me, if the prod is removed, you are going to take it to afd. I have no problems verify your communication with every possible policy. That's one thing.
Another thing is that others have already edited my new articles. This is a strong sign they are not reundant. The best thing is, if you remove the prod templates. If need be, you can add them again. You do not give me the time to expand the article, to add external links etc., to let others expand the article.
c) your usage of the term dicdef is erroneous.
d) your argumentation for the squeaky rat prod is substanceless. WP:NOT is not saying not to create articles about common items. Further, you exclude individuals who do not visit pet stores, because they do not have any pets. This is discrimination. User:Yy-bo 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have not threatened you. There is nothing threatening in my tone. I have stated, simply and clearly that I believe these articles are not in keeping with wikipedia. Whoever removes the prod, unless the articles themselves assert notiability, I or others will nominate them. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for this statement. I believe you are acting in good faith. The article creations have been in good faith. I hope others will expand them a bit. Thanks for expressing doubt to articles, there is nothing wrong with it. User:Yy-bo
  • I always assume good faith unless proven to be wrong. I also believe in community scrutiny for all of our actions. There is a difference between bad faith, something I have never accused you of nor see any reason to suggest, and a misjudgement, which I feel you have made, about the creation of trivia instead of notable articles. Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
transient fripperies

I do not know any policy on transient fripperies. Further, i would like to refer to Haunted yard, added link. There are loads of such sites. They are not non-noteable, just because you do not know them. User:Yy-bo 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Why would there be a policy on those words per se? The words I used signify that the subjects of the articles and the categories you created for them are in my opinion so lacking in importance that they will never ever meet any of the criteria for notability set out in WP:Notability. Provide correct citations that do not violate WP:Spam that assert the notability of these items and wikiepdia has won because you have proved that the artilces are notable. But please look at your own talk page under the heading "What's the Deal?" to see how another editor perceives them. Fiddle Faddle 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yy-bo: I perceive it like you just do not like halloween, squeaky rats etc, and thus you argue with low significance. At least animated coffin has evidence on the internet, though haunters are a special population group. Wikipedia does not include statements to exclude minorities, to flavour the mainstream. User:Yy-bo 13:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not censored

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored In addition, assumptions about the information preferences of people you do not know are questionable. (refering to the prod argumentation of Halloween yard). User:Yy-bo

  • You are perfectly correct. Wikipedia is not censored. I fail to see what you are talking about with the nomination Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. If this belongs anywhere at all it belongs in Wiktionary, but is a non notable dicdef Fiddle Faddle 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe it is expandable. How about external links (to cyperhaunt.com) into wikitionary? I do not believe cyberhaunt.com is non-noteable. And, it is not the only site about halloween yards. User:Yy-bo 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You must do as you see fit. However you have stated that you will not read an excellent treatise on notability, and you do not seem to be making practical use of WP:Notability. It is not for me to decide. I am not judge and jury here. The community reviews and decides. Individuals simply comment and nominate Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Hang on. I wrote I will read it if it gets tagged with an essay template, like other user essays. I already have read it, though not completely. User:Yy-bo 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I should have been clearer: Since I very much doubt that this will be tagged I thus very much doubt that you will read it. I apologise for any misrepresentation of your views. Nonetheless I feel it to be a mistaken stance that you state you are taking. Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
            • If it becomes a WIKIPEDIA article (W), then it needs to be tagged, tuna or not tuna. To my knowledge. User:Yy-bo 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Ok, enough of this. I perceive this behaviour of yours is being exhibited simply to exasperate and will take no further part in conversations over these articles or about notability with you. "Tuna" is irrelevant here. The article is patently on a user page as you can see clearly. If you reply please expect no further replies from me. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Your communication about prod's

you wrote:

As you know, you are welcome to strengthen the articles in order to assert notability

This is not threatening, as stated in above talk. I do not really mean it. Similar, halloween attractions are not for real, it is only makebelieve, the graves are fake.
I will try to increase notability. User:Yy-bo 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)~

your statement:

read User:Uncle_G/On_notability again.

I have read parts of it, I agree to not to use nn, he is right on this.
Otherwise, i won't read it until is is tagged with a statement like this one

This page is an essay. This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.
Shortcut:
.....

User:Yy-bo 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be? It is on a user sub page. Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It made an impression like being a new policy, or someone trying to use own arguments like if they are official policy. 2) I have researched: Some similar essays (on user pages) use the template. Any reason why UncleG is not displaying the template? I never wrote his arguments are wrong. If he adds the template, i can read the complete essay. User:Yy-bo 13:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Since he has no reason whatsoever to place that on the top of the article precisley because it is a user page and ipso facto his own opinion and an essay the point you make is wholly irrelevant. But by taking the attitude you state you are taking you are depriving yourself of excellent information which you really should consider properly. It is your right not to read it, naturally, but the attitude you are displayimg ill becomes you as a mature editor. Fiddle Faddle 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yy-bo I believe you get me wrong. I am just saying other users display the essay template. It is not much demanded to show conformity. This is not acommunity discussion, but a user talk discussion. Sorry if it disrupts you. User:Yy-bo 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Repeated reversions of Sea Cadet page

Hi TimTrent. I notice that things have gone quiet on the Sea Cadet discussion page. This is just a courtesy note to enquire whether you have put the discussion to bed after your changes were reverted again? I feel strongly that the image is of benefit and the fact that it is from my book of T200 pictures is irrelevant. I have removed the external links. Of course I will 100% accept any formal licence decisions from Wikipedia. Thanks for starting the debate. Des. Desk1 13:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you actually aware of image policy? Restricted use images are not allowed on Wikipedia, that is why these ones have been listed for deletion. They will be removed unless Desk1 removes restrictions. Astrotrain 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That they will be removed if they are against policy is a given. It is not up to the nominator to act as judge, jury and executioner, though. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi TimTrent. Well lets put this to the test. I have uploaded a new version of the Royalist Image:WY2T1673 royalist v pd.jpg. You should now be in a postion to propagate that image to any article you feel is relevant; without being harrassed. As for the other images, I await the mediation results as the issue is quite a major one for Wikipedia. Not about me but about the thousands of pro photographers that could place their work if protected. Of course Astrotrain™ should refain from reverting my other images out of articles until the mediation process has completed and your support on this will be welcomed. Best of wishes, Des Desk1 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I notice that Royalist is not mentioned in the Tall Ships article, you may wish to add your ship and a link? All the best, Des. Desk1 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Des. That seems to have done the trick. Fiddle Faddle 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Triviality of articles

Animated_property has emerged from animated coffin. Animated properties are, for instance, used for film productions. I am not creating a hype of trivial, non-sense articles. Articles of low notabilty are required like fatty oil to cogwheels: they may leed to new articles, which are not trivial. I do not wish to discuss previous topics any further. Nor i like the way you lessen my work (probably not on purpose, i already have read your good-faith statements). I am sorry if i do not know enough about Animated_property. I will create a request for the article. Animated_property is not trivial/WP:BALLS. User:Yy-bo 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Your user page and Firefox

To be fair I haven't tried it in any other browser, but it doesn't display at the top in the way I think you intended. Instead text overlays text and looks "interesting" Fiddle Faddle 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My useragent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6 (Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.6-3). I've also tested it in Konqueror and Opera for Linux. Mind taking a screenshot for me? Cheers, Netsnipe ► 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Easy as winking. No wuckers, mate. How would you like it delivered? Fiddle Faddle 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Gmail thanks. Take a stab in the dark at what username is. = ). By the way, what's your useragent? Thanks -- Netsnipe ► 18:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Darkened stab happening, gmail delivering with useragent details Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Halloween traditions

Hi Tim,

I want to thank you for the courtesy you showed me by alerting me to your proposal to split the article although I do disagree with the proposed split. Here is a copy of my response on the Halloween traditions talk page: "Oppose I personally would prefer to see the article remain as it is in that is a very young article (3 1/2 months old) and has not really had a chance to grow. If there ultimately is a split, I would like to propose a more simplified name of "List of Halloween traditions."

I may be offline for a while so please do not interpret my lack of an additional response as a snub. --The Argonaut 08:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. With these various Halloween articles my feeling is that this one should survive, but that it needs to be taken in hand and given more than just a makeover. That, together with the challenges I and others are having in communicating with the originator of the many articles, is the reason why I feel this should be played out in public rather than any editor simply being bold. We may never agree over the matter, but that in itself is not important. What is important is that we act with consensus and for the greater good. I have responded on the article's talk page, but wanted to give you a more personal answer here. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tim. I have placed my response on the article's talk page. --The Argonaut 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Templates
Although we disagree, I do appreciate your civility. I am going to remove the templates and if there is not improvement in the article after Halloween and you reinstall them, please consider using the more simplified title of "List of Halloween traditions." Thanks. --The Argonaut 09:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Your afd for my halloween articles

Why you have not added speedy deletion to the redirect pages? Obviously they are not really required. I will not vote for the afd, though i do not believe the articles should have been grouped together. Whatever happens, i will create a request for Animated property. Parental guidance (article group) has been questioned a while ago, though it has survived afd. I have been the creator of the article. It has been argued being OR, not noteable etc. However it has lead to other articles User:Yy-bo 11:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I recognize nominating the weakest article (little content) for a group afd. The argumentation OR (original research) does not apply for halloween yard, animated coffin. An animated coffin is an animated property, and can be linked to from Animated property. The link to cyberhaunt is no adver spam. It is a high-quality flash movie. I consider it noteable. I refer to Demented_Cartoon_Movie VS. Cyberhaunt.com in terms of notability. I do not really want to create an article about cyberhaunt.com. However, the demented movie has a low quality level, and is accepted on wikipedia. Cyberhaunt is not good enough? If DEMENTED stays, why my articles must go. I will argue in further discussions by this comparison. User:Yy-bo 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am really not interested in pursuing this discussion with you here. If you wish to comment then do it on the AfD page. Fiddle Faddle 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User Yy-bo

I must ask you to refrain from the usge of the label our mutual friend. I must ask strongly to refrain from it. Reference: Talk page of User David D. Policies applying: WP:NPOV and others. User:Yy-bo 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I think you have misunderstood. I see people I meet here as friends. David D and I each tried very hard to assist you with the various articles, and each did it in a friendly manner. Thus friend is appropriate. We did it separately and also together, hence mutual is appropriate. The term is civil, not in any way disparaging, and I had not expected it to cause any offence of any description. Since it has obviously caused you offence I apologise, but have no idea what offended you. Do please read policies before quoting them, though. Talk pages are not required to be neutral, especially user talk pages. Fiddle Faddle 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Good for you. I would like to be other editor's friend, if possible. Have a look WP:WP before taking further action. Read it again. User:Yy-bo 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


halloween

stop it now. User:Yy-bo 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Request for Admin Advice

Please look at my interactions with Yy-bo here, on their talk page, on the various AfD's I have nominated, especially on the current AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloween yard (second nomination) (which I definitely messed up during nomination). Please look also at My request for advice on the Village Pump. Apart from the sensible thing which is to have no further involvement or interaction with this editor, advice I have given myself and have taken, I'd appreciate knowing how to deal with a situation in future where an editor creates multiple trivial articles.

It certainly is not personal from my persepctive. I think they perceive it as personal, however. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since he seem to be jumping to attack you and almost all his contributions are to AfD, I would suspect he might be bad-faith and a sockpuppet; his continuing reference to WP:WP in nonsensical contexts is bizarre. I would just ignore him and continue to do what is right for the encyclopedia. If he becomes belligerent, he can be blocked from editing. —Centrx→talk • 20:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reassurance. I will continue to do what is right for the encyclopaedia, and strive to avoid conflict and confrontation Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably this is getting worse, not better. Now there is this. I will be offline for 24 hours or so after today, which may help, but I simply have no idea what to do for the best after that. I feel threatened by this editor, and sad because they are capable of great work if only they would do so. We are asked to be bold, so I am. We are asked to be civil, and I am. Fiddle Faddle 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you continue, request for comment unavoidable

I certainly request you to stop engaging in my articles. They are not perceived in the way you (and your few associates) perceive them. By the rest of the community. Have a look Oven, my lastest contribution.
If you continue to attack my work, this will result in a request suit, for comment and other things possible.
I do not wish to interact with you. I do not wish to communicate with you on my/your talk page.
I will request immediate if you contiune, you have been warned.
Do not forget to investigate Oven, if you feel you must police my edits. User:Yy-bo 19:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:OWN. While we can often feel emotionally connected to articles which we have contributed to we have no right of ownership. The moment we submit them they become public property, owned by the community as a whole. I understand that you have put work into many articles, and created many. I am in awe of your energy and commitment. I simply wish you would not create trivia and would devote your energy to creating the wonderful articles I believe you are capable of. I have deliberately waited quite some time before replying to you here in order to allow this matter to cool down. Equally it would have been impolite of me to ignore your message. Fiddle Faddle 20:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Queer Alliance

Moved the following reply here from my user page:

that was an axidant due to an edit conflict and i did remove it very quickly and changed it off!Guaguis 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bulk AFDs

Thanks for that. I thought about doing it but could not find a guide. Could you give me some advice? (Pally01 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

  • I am copying this back to your own talk page. As you see I reply where I start the converstaion. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WTC split

Hi Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent (?)

Just a quick note to say I agree on the splitting, and starting over may be a good idea. I'd like to suggest moving the whole WTC (including buidling 7) over into the new article. Also, a suggestion for the title: "Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center". Anyway, thanks for being bold on this.--Thomas Basboll 10:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm really just looking at this as a practical exercise in good editing practice. It's too long. It needs a real split. The current split was incomplete, thus we have total confusion. So we have to go back to basics or we will lose the plot. :) Fiddle Faddle 11:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I take it you are going to do this? (I have to admit I'm not quite sure what the procedural mistake was.)--Thomas Basboll 11:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Not I. The procedural mistake was in splitting the "split text" out, but also in leaving it behind. Thus we had twin articles with identical content, one in a section, the other as the entire article. The original spliiting editor did a half job. I have no particular skill in this article, so I am not the editor to split it out. It needs someone with an involvement in the article itself to handle it. Fiddle Faddle 11:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. How do I do this? Cut out the WTC section and open a new page? What about the still-to-be-deleted-or-not article? Rename it? Redirect? Is there anything I will need to contact an admin about?--Thomas Basboll 12:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The process is simple, but I suggest you wait until this AAfD is closed or the stuff will hit the fan.
  1. Prepare a summary/précis of the "yet to be created" article
  2. create the new article by copying verbatim the desired sections from the original article into it, stating precisely that you have done this in the edit summary
  3. Overwrite the sections you have removed with the précis you have created, PLUS one of those "see main article" links (I am sure there is a template for that, possibly Template:main
  4. State exactly what you have done on EACH talk page, both for the original article and the newly created article, including the rationale for the split. I suggest you prepare this statement in advance and slam it fast onto the new article's talk page, stating "Split is in progress, further notice when split is technically complete" (and post that further notice :) Be clear that you state that this is an administrative edit and that there has been no editing of POV or references or any other element, and that you take all relevant noted and references with you.
Before you act, I suggest you find and read the WP guidance (I can't find it currently) on splitting articles, and, where it differs from my advice, to follow it Fiddle Faddle 12:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_a_page is a good place to start Fiddle Faddle 12:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Impatience got the better of me. But at least we'll have seen how could have looked... I've followed most of your advice, however. Except for the waiting part.--Thomas Basboll 12:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I wish you the very best of luck :) Glad at least some of my advice was helpful ;) Fiddle Faddle 20:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi again. Unfortunatelly the case is not over - check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Cheers SalvNaut 17:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

the 9/11 "stuff"

I share a similar position to you, and also find the situation troubling. It is likely to be so for the forseeable future, as it is an extremely emotive subject for many people. Simply raising it on a public forum is good, as it at least creates an awareness, and may attract some new and disinterested participants. You might raise your concerns elsewhere, perhaps User talk:Jimbo Wales or WP:PUMP. However, I would advise you to tread cautiously, and, unless you want to spend a lot of time in a maelstrom, not to get too involved. Doubtless it will get sorted out in the long term anyway, under its own steam. Feel free to email me, if you want to discuss any concerns privately. Tyrenius 13:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the nature of the territory. You might want to examine this extraordinary accusation as an example. Tyrenius 14:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It happens with various contentious subjects, and can often happen with very trivial matters. That's just the way it is! Tyrenius 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the same size would be about right, but what is the explanation of this? Tyrenius 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

fork vs split jargon

could you eplain to me (or point me to) the definition of Fork and Split? — Xiutwel (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can do my best.
A fork is where the same (or essentially similar) text appears in two articles on the same topic. This allows each article to go in a different direction (ie fork), despite initial similarity or even congruence. Thus the topic forks into two branches based on the same initial component.
A split is a clerical exercise in editing. Where an article is unduly long, and where it can be split into logical subarticles, the sections which may be split off are removed intact, a précis is created in the original article of a single, possibly two paragraphs, and a wikilink is made to the "new" subarticle (new ONLY in that it is a new article, not that it contains new data). At this point the new article may be refined and edited at will by all editors.
The issue in the 9/11 articles seems to me to be that there has been confusion over what is stated to be POV in the "newly split" article, and thus some editors have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that this is a fork. They are mistaking the need to edit the subarticle with the split itself.
There are two processes at work there. The first process has been to create a correct clerical split, and the second is to edit the subarticle in order to bring it into line with WP's guidelines. Regrettably the current AfD was started pretty much concurrent with the split, miss-stating it is a fork.
I hope that helps somewhat. I can never find the WP definitions when I need them. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot, very clear indeed! :) — Xiutwel (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin

A cursory look at your contributions indicates you may be in the running for adminship. If you're interested, we can discuss this further. You will need to enable your email also. Tyrenius 23:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of you to say that. At present I don't feel it is a role I want, primarily because I feel it requires a commitment I don't feel able to give at present. My working life is fluid, with huge tranches of time I can't use for anything other than work, and then gaps between contracts, and I think consistent availability is too important. Fiddle Faddle 06:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins, like all other editors, are allowed (expected) to take wikibreaks, so it's not a bar, but obviously it must be your choice on the matter. Tyrenius 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not a bar. May I suggest I take a raincheck on the thought for 6 months or so. I have not really been here long enough, and, though I am assertive in my statements, and even right some of the time, do not yet have sufficient experience, except, of course, where I do :) Fiddle Faddle 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Eccles College

On second thought/inspection I have removed deletion request/nomination. I do however think a huge amount of vandalism comes from the shared IP address at that college and the page is often vandalised - I suggest a lock - how can I do this/suggest this without messing up again!!! Thanks --Sharonlees 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The college has kids like any other college. They do what kids do. There are three approaches.
  1. watch the page continually (good and sometimes all that is needed) placing vandal warnings on the anon user pages and eventually reporting the vandal while reverting any vandalism. I use "popups" which works well for a novice like me and reverts the vandalism easily, but I have to place vandal warnings manually.
  2. request semi-protection (probably likely to be granted if the circumstances are well explained)
  3. trace the IP to the college and email the administrative contact asking for help. They are usually pleasantly co-operative
Why on earth do you think you messed up? You did what you thought was right. It did the job. And wikipedia solved any shortfall. The main thing is that you were bold and did what you thought was right. You damaged nothing, and all works well. All this and you learnt some new skills, too! Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

fbi

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can take a look with pleasure, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you sure you mean me? Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

re:

Ah I think I see what the problem was now. I've put the AfD tag back but it's pointing to the right AfD now. If you feel particularly inclined, you might make sure the other articles all point to the right AfD too. --W.marsh 16:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Controlled demolition

Hi FF, thanks for your support. Yes, I try to remain calm. And I definitely think we need to look at this as a project of some kind. I think we can get the article down in size, and especially reduce the amount of references. I'm hoping we can get a consensus established to that end, but that looks easier said than done right now. Another thing we will need to do is distinguish controversial from uncontroversial facts. What I'm really worried about is the prose: that it is going to held together with "what they claim are", "some believe", "reports of allegedly suspicious indications of possible evidence that the hypothesis has an outside chance of being likely", etc. We need to confine ourselves to information that can be presented in prose like a windowpane (Orwell's ideal). Cheers.--Thomas Basboll 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to stay an informed spectator. That way I can probably be of some use, especially since wiser heads than mine on this topic are editing. I think you need a collection of language that reflects the hypothetical nature. It may be possible to do this with "This section documents the claims of others" followed by "it is said by Red, Yellow and Brown that......", "Green disputes this by....", "Proponents of the hypothesis state that...."
I think you need to use that editing banner that I have seen but can't find (or create a template: "This section is being heavily rewritten to shorten it and frame it as a disputed hypothesis more clearly. Anticipated completion by [date]")
I hope that may give you some help in seeking to ensure that it does not become an AfD target so easily again. Fiddle Faddle 06:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Timtrent, just stopping by to say I like your signature :-) Nothing important. —Mets501 (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

:) Er, thank you. Fiddle Faddle 06:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


"Controversial"

I agree on shorter, and the total edit is now just the one adjective. I really couldn't see how either side of the debate could argue that the subject is not controversial, even "highly" controversial. The debates on this subject are limited in number, but very heated, as many talk pages and AfDs show. But "controversial" in the intro definately helps frame the argument into (slightly) more NPOV. Guyanakoolaid 07:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Falklands and Malvinas

Thanks, I will use a similar format whenever the opportunity arises. In fact, I didn't revert the last version without Malvinas (even though I could, since 24hrs had already pass) because I was a bit tired of discussing the same things over and over again. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 09:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

Sounds good to me. We can always focus the message as the project progresses. Nice to have you working on the article.--Thomas Basboll 10:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, more "Standing on the sidelines and shouting encouragement". I see the article as important, but have not the skill in editing this huge and weighty piece to do more than assist quietly. Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi Timtrent, I'm starting a new WikiProject on Britain 1815-51, if you're interested, feel free to reply.... I saw your userpage, you seem to work on some good subjects! --Gold-Horn 10:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I can devote some limited time to it. :) Please link the project here and I'll take a look. My intetest in that period was really created by a casual visit to Tide Mills. Following that thread led a long way. Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll set it up; I just need some suggestions on a name for it, and other things... --Gold-Horn 16:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • How about "Wikiproject Britain: 1st half 19th C"

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder. A bit of rhetoric never hurt anyone, like you say. Will keep it within bounds. (I do think the issue is pretty clear now, so some good may have come of it.)--Thomas Basboll 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

NiCl

Hehe (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lame}}

Please outline the "so much work" this template has caused. It was an optional template. You could have removed it from your favorite talk page if you felt it belittled your important edit war. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Only divisive to those who need a reminding about trivial edit warring. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasty addition moved to talk page (9/11 demo article)

Thanks for the note. I just tossed that on there somewhat hastily -- I won't get a chance to flesh it out and reference it until this evening. That's one issue. I assume the other one you're referring to is the fact that the oral history section is morphing into a pro-con discussion of whether or not there were explosions. That speaks to the need to reorganize the page. Regardless of that, I do think that eyewitness accounts of explosions (which offer no way of measuring the loudness or timing of the sound after the fact), and statements about explosions in the basement that have never been logically connected to a collapse beginning at the top of the building need to be presented alongside objective records such as video footage which can be evaluated by anyone interested enough to actually view the source material. --dreish~talk 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Guinea Pig

I reverted an edit that contained false and/or incorrect information that in my best judgement was not a good faith edit. If the edit was in fact genuine, then the user clearly failed to exercise any judgement before posting. This is because their edit was disproven at the beginning of the article. Saying that a guinea pig comes from New Guinea was probably a joke by the user. Therefore, this was not a good faith edit.--pIrish 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot Malfuction

I saw your post on Werdna's talk page and I figured I'd let you know that he appears to be on indefinite wikibreak so it's unknown whether Werdnabot will be fixed in the future as it is currently indefinately blocked due to the malfuctions that took place. Just though I'd let you know, cheers. Canadian-Bacon t c e 07:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I guess a 15 year old is allowed to do what 15 year olds do. Pity since that thing was more than useful. Fiddle Faddle 07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As it stood the article had to go because it was not about Mrs Klausutis except in the broadest sense. Had it been "The Klausutis Scandal" or a better title it would have been approriate to keep (with reasonably minor rewrites) Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot on article talk pages

Werdnabot should not be used on article talk pages. Whereas on user talk pages the user sees all messages that come to him and handles them in the amount of time he so chooses, an article might have open issues for months, or it might be heavily active and then completely inactive. —Centrx→talk • 03:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright permission for King George's Field

We have recieved an e-mail on Wikimedia OTRS granting permission to use material at http://www.playing-fields.com as public domain, with reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject King George's Fields. The relevant text and/or images need to be tagged properly, which articles and images are copied from there? —Centrx→talk • 05:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm a little lost. If you mean "Which images (etc) are those granted permission?" then the Resources and Images Sections contain the full list. In addition the text of the articles King George's Fields and National Playing Fields Association contains material supplied by and reproduced by permission of the NPFA (which is noted in the text). The four images are:
The source spreadsheet is Image:King George's Fields 2006.xls
I think (hope) I have already tagged them correctly, but welcome further advice to ensure that any irregularities are ironed out Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I have tagged it with the proper information and the OTRS ticket number, which is used for these cases. —Centrx→talk • 08:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Glad I got my part correct and that the system works. One question: The text articles. Should they be tagged as well in case anyone slaps a copyvio on them? They are most assuredly part of the same release. Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If there are parts copied, then yes. —Centrx→talk • 09:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There are major parts there. They were released under the same authority. I imagine that it needs you as an admin to tag them rather than me as a contributor? Currently each article (listed above) is flagged with a <ref></ref> mechansim showing the fully attributed portion. I'd appreciate your tagging them please. Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to protect the articles from any accusation of copyvio I have, though not on the authorised list, added the tag{{ConfirmationOTRS|otrs=2006101210002874|source=http://www.playing-fields.com/}} to the article talk pages. I would appreciate your checking and validation (or otherwise) of my actions to ensure that we have the articles correctly tagged. I suppose I should not have been the one to do it, but equally I took your comments above as a pseudo-instruction to proceed. Maybe I should have waited for you. If so I apologise. Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. —Centrx→talk • 05:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I agree with your views on unprotection left with Steel359. You may be interested in my comment there. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. The odd attitudes that pervade here are one of the reasons I am wikibreaking. I find the principle of Wikipedia excllent, but the practice is, in some cases, wrecked by those who are not discriminating between knowledge of the rules and pragmatism. Fiddle Faddle 09:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Joel Roth

Thanks for your catch; I probably got too caught up in belief that the user I reverted was being a problem editor. I've reverted the article further back, and removed the relevant warning from that user's talk page. GRBerry 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Yr Edit Summary on reverting The Game

If you examine the sentence that the claim about the game being played in Canada was added too, an article in De Morgen was explicitly listed as the source for the information. As the article does not mention Canada, the addition was clearly false (See Talk:The Game (game)/Archive 4#The Game quoted in De Morgen newspaper for information on the article). As to your assertion that the game is played in Canada, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability via reliable sources and to date no one has provided a single source supporting this assertion. --Allen3 talk 11:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Economic System of Islam

Please note the biography of the author of the book. In particular, this section. A highly notable individual, highly notable views, highly notable book. Hornplease 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article did not assert that importance. Importance by implication is not acceptable. I am aware that it is a book by an imporant scholar, but that does not make it an important book. The tag needs to remain until the article asserts the importance. Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you have enhanced the article. To me it is the wrong side of the border of importance still, but I am not going to argue over it. We simply hold different views. It is now, at least, a valid stub, just about. It needs far more to be a worthy article. Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sea Cadets

I had a look at the page, but sorry to say, this is way outside my knowledge, so an "expert eye" will have to be somebody else's. Sorry. Trekphiler 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Shame. But thanks for looking. We have what seems to be an intractable issue there currently. Fiddle Faddle 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spellings

The English language is from England. Therefore, using the same language as is used in England is appropriate for an English speaking website, as shown by en.wikipedia.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.217.14 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Please see WP:SPELLING and stop changing things to reflct your views unless and until you understand how things work here. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/User_talk%7ETimtrent_Archive_3_d50b.html"