User talk:Ben W Bell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note for all users I shall make any replies to comments on my talk page here on my talk page. I feel this allows everyone to see a consistent conversation rather than one spread across multiple pages.

Archive 1 - Beginning to September 2006

Archive 2 - September 2006 to 10 January 2007

Archive 3 - 11 January 2007 to 25 April 2007

Archive 4 - 26 April to 2 July 2007

Archive 5 - 3 July 2007 - 30 October 2007

Archive 6 - 31 October 2007 - 15 March 2008

Mea culpa. I had not spotted that. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Everdon Article

Hello Ben W Bell

I see on your recent edit of the 'Everdon' article you removed the Everdon.info link. You said: "Use only official website. Someone's personal fansite is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please stop adding the everdon.info site and please read WP:EL for the rules"

Everdon.info is the official village website, and NOT a fansite. Everdon.com is the old, outdated version. If you don't believe me, check out the Everdon.info website - it even states on the home page it is the 'official' site. I have also verified this by emailing the webmaster.

I am now going to undo the changes you made to include both links.

I don't mean to be rude, but please check out your sources before editing the article again.

Thanks

Everdon (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Help requested

These edits are clearly inappropriate for the article. However my revert parole only mentions being allowed to revert vandalism (except one a week). As I'm not sure if this is vandalism, please can you revert the changes to be on the safe side? Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive?

Hi Ben,

Are you aware you just posted this to an archive of the noticeboard that's more than a year old? No one will see it (it's on my watchlist because a banned user commonly edits that particular archive). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Ben,

I am replying to you (finally after looking at the tutorials on how to reply to someone in Wikipedia), regarding the message you sent me on external links. Thanks for giving me the heads up. I thought it was okay to add the links since they were relative. In the future, I will go the the article page and select "discussion" (once again I had to go to the tutorials on how to do this, because I had no idea where the Talk page was for article pages) to request adding a link. Take Care.

TheTVGuy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland

Could you take a look at this for me?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. What in particular about it is the issue? Just asking. Yes someone born in NI is automatically a British citizen, and can also be or (if they renounce their British citizenship) Irish citizens. Canterbury Tail talk 22:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
First, that needs a ref and second, didnt we agree that everyone is born both British and Irish?Traditional unionist (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the laws don't state that. They state they are British with the option of also being Irish. British happens, Irish is voluntary and the option has to be taken. There was a long conversation about this on the talk page. RoI government cannot mandate citizenship on the citizens of another country, just the option of it. Canterbury Tail talk 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I remember the conversation, I just must have remembered the conclusion wrongly!. Do you have a reference for the bit in brackets that padraig has chosen to contest?Traditional unionist (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bardcom

You may be interested in WP:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom. Tb (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Canterbury Tail talk 22:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RV of motorways

Can I please point out that the RVs you have made are unconstructive as the Km values which were added have all been removed. This reduces accessibility and reduces the quality of the articles. In future could you please be more careful when reverting edits as not all of what has been changed may be necessary for removal.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibition

Your use of "pointless" is un-necessarily uncivil. Maybe we just disagree on the size of the intro? Cut it down if you like, but the revert is uncalled for. Please see: Wikipedia:summary style. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay yes I admit the use of the term pointless was unnecessary and probably highly inaccurate. Copying and pasting the intro from further down the article seemed rather odd to myself though and at the time seemed more like the work (not offense meant) of a vandal on a very heavily vandalised article. I'm sure we can figure out a way of figuring something out but it seems, only in my opinion, that the intro is of sufficient size to tell people the gist of the matter without covering the history in the intro. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, apology accepted. Since I'm new to the article I had no idea it was such a target. My expansion was rather fast and that's why it relied heavily on the available text. However, the lead section should summarize the contents of the rest of the article - I think it ought to define Prohibition in the US, mention the historical context, mention the Volstead Act or Amendments, and maybe some of the cultural aspects. The body of the article should expand on these sentences in full paras. Maybe I can help out with it tomorrow; signing off now. Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canterbury

Your recent edit summary was incorrect! Canterbury has had four railway stations over the years. If you read the section on railways tou will see that they are all mentioned. I've readded South as the fourth station after another editor changed it to third. Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough I stand corrected. I didn't notice it in my glance through the article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bardcom

No - I have many interests, but I just stumbled upon this user's activities. So you're an admin. Well do something about his disruptive behaviour. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What disruptive behaviour. I've spotted no disruptive behaviour of late. Remember assume good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's one from his latest rash of edits [1], and as you know there are many more. I say this in all seriousness, something must be done. We cannot have a situation where it's not possible to admonish an editor for fear of being accused of ad hominem attacks. The user's edit summaries do not adequately describe his changes. It's very difficult to AGF when someone is told time and time again to refrain from disruptive activities. I really am surprised that he's got away with it for so long. I would like to formally ask you, as an admin, to pick up this issue again, maybe reinvigorate the RfC, but please don't just stand idly by. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment - altering another user's comments. I don't understand. I wasn't aware of this, and if I did so it wasn't intended. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New handle Ben? Very nice. Didn't realise you'd become an Admin - no extra points in my book for that I'm afraid! Now, while you are asking Bardcom to stop editing "British" Isles articles could I ask you to do likewise? Please do not revert my edits on the "List of British (sic) Isles" page without getting agreement on the talkpage. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, I've been an admin for as long as I've known you. You just never realised as I never considered blocking you, instead I prefer to talk to people (other than the obvious blatant vandals). And yes, I shall return the favour. Canterbury Tail talk 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
My God I don't pay attention, do I? I only discovered last night that The Deek was an Admin - I thought he was some regular Joe engaged in an edit war with some regular Joseph. Sarah777 (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Some admins make it clear they are admins, some of us like to keep it quieter. We all still do our work though. Happy editing.Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Weeks (author)‎

Hi. :) Sorry to bother you with a problem, but I appreciated your help with Lulu (publisher) and hoped that you would be able to advice me with a similar problem with the same editor. After the problems with Lulu, I looked at the other, similar publishers (Xlibris, iUniverse and AuthorHouse) and found exactly the same problem. At the moment I'm planning to politely go through the advice under wp:dispute and see if it can be settled, and there is no rush either way. But this led me to Kevin Weeks (author)‎, and there I have a bigger problem. The article had previously been speedied after Qworty had tagged it, and as far as I can tell he was correct to do so. Then the author (who is also the subject of the article) rewrote it, adding references and a list of awards. Again Qworty speedied it. This time it was kept, but the admin prodded it as advertising. Again, I see no hassles with this. Unfortunately, it was then edited from this to this. That seemed excessive to me, so I rewrote the article. I didn't revert, as I felt that the concerns raised by the prod were valid, and left the tags in place as I wasn't sure if they had been fully addressed. Qworty then reverted back to the current state. At any rate, I really can't see discussion making much progress. I'm not asking you to intervene, as you have your own concerns, but I would dearly love some advice on how to proceed. My concern is that this is damaging to the process - editors should be allowed to work on the article (and by that I don't really mean me, but other editors addressing concerns raised in the tags), but I can't see that happening with the article in the current state. - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I have no concerns with the article being deleted, I'd just like the process to be fair to the original author, and I want to avoid edit warring. Aside from that, I'm staying clear of the other POD publishers for a bit, as other editors can probably take it up if need be. I can't see much to be gained by arguing, as Qworty's position seems to be intractable, but maybe time will help. - Bilby (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ferry Wharf

Please don't move articles that defy conventions without asking. How you think that to be the "correct" name when you don't even know about the article, I have no idea. Please ask before you act. Reply here. JRG (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no need to be so short. I moved it to what I thought was the correct name as the article starts with Greenwich Ferry Wharf, not Greenwich ferry wharf. If the former is not correct then I'll change the article to the latter. If you're going to create such articles it helps to avoid confusion by having the capitalisation correct and not inconsistent between the article name and the first line. Many people would have moved that article, not just myself, due to the capitalisation of the name in the article itself. Same for some of the others you've recently created. Also a lot of these ferry wharfs you have created or edited are inconsistent in their references as to the names. The article titles imply that the ferry wharf is part of the name but the Sydney Ferries site just calls them by the location. If the ferry wharf is not actually in the name then it should really be put in brackets afterwards and not added to the name of the article as per the MOS. Also some of the references call them just Name Wharf with a capital W in the Wharf. Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We have conventions for wharves and railway stations which do not reflect the MOS style - simply because mostly the wharves and stations are the names of suburbs and would require disambig pages for each one. So rather than have that where needed and be confusing, we use the same "X railway station, Sydney" or "X ferry wharf, Sydney" style to avoid confusion. That's the way things are done; not the way you say and assume. Have a look before you act, (or alternatively, just ask). JRG (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, no need to be short. In which case can you kindly make the capitalisation consistent on the article names and article leads as otherwise someone else is likely to do the same thing. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for constituent countries

As your edit at Editors where can I see this consensus for using the one name over another? I believe you, I'd just like to see it so I can acknowledge it for future editing.Wikipéire (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Reasonable question. The consensus comes out of WP:UKCITIES#Lead.2A, and has subsequently spilled out to mean everything relating to the constituent parts of the UK. It's reasonable enough as people get UK, Britain, England etc mixed up. Canterbury Tail talk 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Wikipéire (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. It's nice to have a consensus one way or another on the issue. Take care. Canterbury Tail talk 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you take a look again?

Hi, my edits are being blindly reverted by our old friend, user:86.27.230.177, without reasons, references, or research. Given your previous experience dealing with him, could I ask you to intervene please? Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make ad hominem attacks on editors like you have done here. Please comment on the edit, not on the editor. You will note I've given a reason for my edits and in some cases I suggest that they are taken to Talk. Please can I ask you to take these issues to the relevant Talk page in each case. As you know, British Isles and its use is controversial in Wikipedia (though not in many oother places), so again I ask you to discuss changes that might result in its removal, before going ahead. Thanks (copied to Bardcom's Talk page). 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please sort this stuff out yourselves. This sort of nobodies right petty sectarian fighting is the reason I left Northern Ireland in the first place. This is the sort of thing where if I get involved again I'll end up being called a British protestant bigot by one side or a republican catholic ner do well by another and getting stuck in the middle being told I'm wrong on both sides for different reasons. Note that is a generic and over the top response by myself not necessarily aimed at you two in particular, but all the Irish/British/Northern Irish fighting that takes place constantly on Wikipedia. I left the British Isles :) and still can't get away from it. I'm really not in the mood for it at the mo. Come back when I'm feeling less tired and grouchy. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the fact that I was asked by you to not make any edits related to the British Isles for a period of one week, I would have hoped that you would have respected the fact that I kept my word and would have had time to examine my edits and discuss the matter (as was the reason given by you to ask for me to desist for one week). The same anon IP editor has engaged in much the same behaviour as before. As an admin with prior knowledge of this issue, I contacted you expecting intervention from someone who has the necessary background information. While I may not like your response, I respect your decision to not get involved. --Bardcom (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ignore me, I'm just in a grumpy mood right now. I know the matter wasn't discussed, and I acknowledge that you did desist for pretty much the week as agreed and hold nothing against you for that. Canterbury Tail talk 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

Maybe the Republic of Ireland calls itself "Ireland" because it claims the whole island. However, 26/32 counties is still a fraction. The Republic of Ireland is no more "Ireland" than Northern Ireland is, or the Republic of China (Taiwan) is China as a whole.

I appreciate that the British State has an interest in maintaining the fiction that NI and RoI are separate countries, as opposed to parts of the same nation ruled by two separate states, like Korea.

In the same fashion, lazy journalists continually refer to the EU as "Europe", when large chunks of Europe (esp. Russia, Norway, Ukraine, Iceland) are not in it. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your point here is? Canterbury Tail talk 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{notability}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:20 12 May 2008 (GMT).

Sorry, force of habit. Canterbury Tail talk 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland

Hi,

I'd like to take the opportunity to advise you on two matters which, being a member or former member of the Northern Ireland WikiProject or it's sister project on Belfast, you might be interested in the following submission about a recent terrorist attack Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board#News.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask for your help in reviving the Northern Ireland WikiProject. Given that there are only a small number of Wikipedians from Northern Ireland or interested specifically in the region, the project needs all the help it can get.

Cheers, --Setanta747 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pop'n Music songs

Thanks for not deleting the following page. I know there's sandbox but I still working on it. Thanks. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have done so, it's not a reason to speedy delete and article. I realised this and put it back. Happy editing. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha. (: Luv ya man. Lol. I am currently working on BEMANI articles and been trying to improve on them since Feb 08. I already requested a Taskforce, but its a little slow. ): Fireblaster lyz (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coptic Orthodox Church in Canada

Please see the article's discussion page. Thank-you ~ Troy (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think this would be any better, I could make the external links look like this:

____________ Church, Location [2]

...on my sandbox. Just a thought. ~ Troy (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What if the links weren't there — would it still not comply with Wikipedia policy? And what if some of the more important links were just in the external links sections — would that work out? ~ Troy (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A bit better, but detailing all the churches like that just isn't encyclopaedic. DEtailing how many there are and where they are maybe, but not the details as they stand with priests, addresses and the like. The addresses are a complete no no. WIkipedia isn't a copy of the Yellow Pages or the like, but an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you're still wanting to make major revisions, can you please try that out on my sandbox? ~ Troy (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I have started the first phase of editing my Sandbox. ~ Troy (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "British" Isles page protection - strong protest

Ben, Why did you lock the article with both the tag and reference to the geographical term reflecting the position of the British pov edit-warriors? Perhaps you might now lock the Great Britain and Ireland article in it's current (see time) format as I am 100% certain it will shortly be attacked by the same warriors. The absence of any Admin protection while that battle raged is duly noted; especially the failure of several Admins (not including you) to take any action to protect it. Does British pov merit a higher lever of protection from the Wiki-Admin "Community"? Sarah777 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I locked it just when I though the edits were getting out of hand. The locked version does not indicate support for it in any particular state. It is simply locked to stop the edit war until consensus is formed. I paid no attention to what state it was in when I locked it. If it is in a pro-British stance then I apologise, but that's the luck of the draw with no intentions behind it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, seeing as it's yourself Ben you have a rather good record of neutrality so I've no problem WP:AGF. But I note the other article was attacked just as I predicted. Perhaps now protect it. Sarah777 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Have a peek at Great Britain and Ireland. Why does some minor warring on "British" Isles lead to protection, while massive disputes on GB&I doesn't trigger a single Admin to pay any heed? (If I were cynical, which of course I'm not) I would probably suggest they were waiting for the "right version" to protect. Either way what I see here is war raging and no intervention at all. Can I expect the same indifference if I make a (long overdue) resolute attempt to correct the name of the Republic of Ireland article? Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canterbury GA attempt

User:RyanLupin nominated Canterbury at WP:GAC yesterday, I've given it a review and placed it on hold for approximately seven days. As you are the user with most edits to the page, I thought you'd like to be notified of its progress. It requires a lot of work to reach GA, frankly more than I think can be done in a week, but it might be possible if several users collaborate. I've left comments on the article talk page if you're interested in having a go. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by pre-warned 66.121.215.213

Have you seen this? I noticed him as he is voting here - I've struck his vote, which I think is acceptable in the circumstances. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - as has been pointed out to me, it was May 2006!! I thought it was May this year, and you "last warned" the IP in April. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of INFORMS Publications

Hi, Ben,

My 5/29/08 List of INFORMS Publications posting, along with pages for our scientific society's individual journals, was blocked and removed with reasons given as conflict of interest, copyright infringement, and blatant advertisement.

I am the INFORMS Director of Communications. I posted these pages relying on the model of our sister society IEEE in their List of Publications at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IEEE_publications. The IEEE page also appears to have been posted by a society staffer in a nearly identical way to mine. Please let me know how I can apply the guidelines so that INFORMS, like IEEE, complies.

Thanks.

BarryList 14:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)