User talk:Bigpad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] George Best

Hi there. I think that your change strikes a fair balance. I thought that Bingham's considerataion of Best for 1982 was worth mentioning, although on reflection I agree that I put too great an emphasis on it in my original edit. I think it a terrible shame Best never played in the World Cup; his career coming at the wrong time, particularly when Northern Ireland qualified in 1958 and then back to back in 1982 and 1986. Very sad loss indeed.

Thanks for taking my comments on board, and bringing the right balance to them.

All the best (no pun intended!)

[edit] Preview Button

If you are editing an article please use the preview button just next to the save button to have a preview of your changes. Look at the Bismarck article history: You created ~15 restoring points within an hour of editing. Two or three would have been enough. --Denniss 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Sdavis.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sdavis.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting vandals

When reporting a vandal please read the formatting instructions and remember to use the preview button before you save. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:ReggieJackson HomeRun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ReggieJackson HomeRun.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. No Guru 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:ReggieJackson HomeRun.jpg

In reply to your email --

I'm am glad that you are going to the extra effort to determine the copyright status of any images you upload. The source for ReggieJackson HomeRun.jpg (http://www.africanamericans.com/} claims copyright and all rights are reserved. If you find an image on a website it's probably best to poke around on the site and check for copyright notices. I hope this answers your question. A note on my talk page will get a quicker reply than an email. -- No Guru 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other image problems

Hello Bigpad. There are problems with each of the other images that you have uploaded, including Image:Echarlton.jpg, Image:Gdott.jpg, and Image:39586555 davis203.jpg. Be aware that there are many examples of copyright infringement — including dubious claims of fair use — on Wikipedia that have not net been cleaned-up. It is therefore not safe to simply copy what you see being done with images in other articles. Please read the following pages very carefully before uploading any additional images:

In particular, websites do not need to state that an image is copyrighted in order for it to receive protection under the law. All contemporary works are copyrighted by default; do not lightly claim that images are public domain without being certain that that is the case. Also note fair use counterexamples 4 and 5 before claiming fair use of an image. Finally, remember that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and does not allow copyrighted images of any kind when there are free alternatives available. There is substantial opportunity to procure or produce free images of individuals such as living, active snooker players, and thus little justification for the use a copyrighted photo from a press agency.

If you have any questions, you can ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Regards. ×Meegs 09:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: stop vandalism

Given I am the one removing vandalism from the snooker page I would advise you to retract your accusation. Please check the snooker page history, Bigez was the one adding a load of chimp rubbish - something he has been warned for (by me once with a test4 - the warning you added to his user page was in the wrong place - warnings should go in the talk page, otherwise a user doesn't know they are there) and I removed his vandalism [1]. Please check the sequence of events more carefully before you throw around accusations of vandalism. Thank you. SFC9394 10:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That is quite alright - mistakes happen! In general when warning vandals it is easier to use the {{test}} templates. They allow a standard warning form and ensure if a vandal doesn't cease then when reporting him to WP:AIV they can be quickly dealt with (if a vandal has the full 'suite' of test warnings and hasn't stopped then a block is straight forward). An additional benefit of the templates are that they aren't too personal, sometimes with vandals if an informal warning is too personal then it may act as a form of a challenge to the vandal to defy it rather than cease. Best wishes for your future editing. SFC9394 13:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Graemedott.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Graemedott.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

You replaced the content of Abdul Salaam with a disambiguation page, and created a new page, Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee), where you cut and pasted the old contents of the original Abdul Salaam article.

That is not the best way to create disambiguation pages. Cutting and pasting, like you did, obscures the edit history. You could have:

  1. moved the original [[Abdul Salaam]] to [[Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee)]]
  2. You could then have edited the new article named [[Abdul Salaam]], which the move had created, and which started as a simple redirection to [[Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee)]], and turned it into the disambiguation page.

This approach leaves the edit history, and the talk page, if it existed, easily accessible to future editors.

You also forgot to add a disambiguation line to Abdul Salaam (football player).

Have a nice day. -- Geo Swan 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit history

If you really think it is important for the [[Abdul Salaam]] article serve as the disambiguation page, without screwing around with the edit history for the previously existing article, you will have to ask for the help of an administrator.

I have no objection, in principle, to it being the disambiguation page. However, you put this beyond the power of ordinary users.

Normally, as I explained before, if you or I, or any ordinary user, wanted to create an article for a second individual who shared the same name as someone who already had an existing article, one option would be to move the existing article to a qualified name -- thus preserving its edit history, and associated talk page, if any. But you close this option, by creating an article with the appropriate name. So, moving the article won't work now, because the target name already exists.

Please undo the changes you made today. -- Geo Swan 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Best

I found Bobby Charlton's quote pretty hard to place in the article. I felt that the paragraph should have ended with "Maradona good, Pele better, and George Best", rather than being (slightly) interrupted by Charlton.

[edit] bismarck

i only changed the "try and rescue" once, and yes it is necessary, because "try and rescue" is improper english. this is an encylopedia, and should be written like one. Parsecboy 20:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much had happened; I didn't think you were purposely posting a faulty link or anything. Cheers. Parsecboy 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snooker: end of frame

Hi, What aspect of the above needed revising? I have reverted the last edit (not done by you by done on your prompting!, which only made a tricky enough section even more complicated. My wording was succinct, as opposed to a detailed explanation of every contingency bigpad 08:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just thought a bit more detail could be added since I've always seen Wikipedia as the pursuit of collaborating as much knowledge as possible. I can see why such elaboration might not be too easy on the reader if you're reading it as a non-author or have no knowledge of the game (which of course many wouldn't when perusing the article). If you only meant to revert the last edit then I'm afraid you took out more than that, it's down to a barer format than when I padded it out. Just a question of finding a balance between being laconic and informative I guess. By "editing properly" I was referring more to a tinkering with the grammar/spelling of editors who had added to this section since you did, because some of it was a bit crap if you look at what I changed. Didn't mean to cause any offence. Kris 10:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kris, no offence taken or suggested! As you say, striking the balance between the casual browser and subject expert can be difficult. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to expand things a little, e.g. "A concession, when one player gives up due to being too far behind to have a realistic chance of winning the frame [without extra points from a large number of snookers]"
Something brief along these lines for the various scenarios might be ok. The only concern is that article is a little "dense" already and not that easy to follow. So we want to avoid making it any more like a Civil Service document. I keep an eye on it to try and cut down on unnecessary tinkering but it's always good to have additional feedback. All the best, Patrick
No problems Patrick, I think the section says all it really needs to now as per this discussion – I made a couple of tweaks but nothing too pedantic I hope, feel free to change further. Cheers, Kris 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Snooker Page

On the wider issue of the article page I was glad to read your comments on the talk page. I think it would be nice to give the whole page a thoroughly good modernisation and clean up. Minor details of the rules such as:

“ If a player commits a foul, and his opponent considers that the position left is unattractive, he may request that the offender play again from that position. ”

is not what a reader wanting to find out about the game of snooker wants to read. The rules should be demerged into a separate article (if one doesn't already exist). There are loads of other things that could be tidied up/better explained/made to look better. I have a good few things running on WP at the moment but I will happily chip in a bit of work if you want to get the wheels moving (a full blown WIP page as I am shepherding for Physics may not be required, but it would be nice to gather a group of editors who can work together). It would also be good to work on this while there is a bit of extra interest during the season, with everything polished up for the World Championship starting. January sounds like a sensible time to start - the festive season being upon us some good WP time is hard to squeeze in at the moment! SFC9394 20:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:39586555 davis203.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:39586555 davis203.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graeme Dott

Could you, please, send me the image you uploaded here, but which was subsequently deleted, to yvohofmans@yahoo.com? Extremely sexy 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nijinsky II

I removed your comment because it was not referenced. Any time you insert a quote as fact you must supply the sources (Wikipedia:Citing sources) and they must be credible (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). The comment on Lester Piggott is a a derogatory one and should never appear in an encyclopedia unless it can be properly documented. Out of courtesy to you, I left it in for the time being but inserted the proper [citation needed] notice. Thanx. Handicapper 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You might be interested in my comments at Talk:Nijinsky II regarding Find A Grave.

According to Mr. Neil O'Connor of Timeform, Nijinsky's highest Timeform rating was 138. - Handicapper 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair amount of work but I'll probably update the Timeform page in a day or two to sort out the Offical Timeform ratings from those reported by jockey.com or delete the latter pending their confirmation. Handicapper 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue with Rinty Monaghan

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Rinty Monaghan, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article.aspx?county=0&articleID=466&cultID=0&townID=0&cultSubID=0&page=0&navID=1. As a copyright violation, Rinty Monaghan appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Rinty Monaghan has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Rinty Monaghan and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Rinty Monaghan with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Rinty Monaghan.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Pan Dan 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, No problem. I have rewritten that page. Some of the information is additional or adds to work I created on Wiki (e.g. the Sailortown link or the name of the streer in which the subject lived). I am also from that district of Belfast and remember that the subject attended my grandfather's funeral in 1979. I was surprised that there was no Wiki page on Rinty, one of our city's sporting heroes, and was pleased to "create it", so to speak. Anyhow, if what's there does not meet the bill I doubt that anyone could rewrite it much differently, as the bare facts are true.
Incidentally, in the category "People from Belfast", I am listed under "P" instead of "M". How is this rectified? bigpad 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite, and the great article! (I fixed the cat by typing Category:People from Belfast|Monagahan, Rinty.) Pan Dan 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong address

Please remove your message from my talk page ASAP. You appear to be confusing me with User:Greglocock. Thanks. Pan Dan 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your um, message, on my talk page. I await further action with great interest. Greglocock 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, Bigpad. I didn't read your message properly. I genuinely thought you meant to leave that message on Greglocock's talk page, because I didn't read it through. So anyway, to get to the substance of your request. I'm not an admin so I can't really address the issue. If you would like to get an admin's attention, I suggest you see Wikipedia:List_of_admins. Once again, I am very sorry for telling you to remove your message from my talk page. I will put it back. Take care, Pan Dan 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Best

The myth that George Best is one of the greatest of all time is more of a local notion, or rather British if you will, than global. I appreciate the impact he had on the British psyche but outside the UK he is not universally viewed as one of the greatest of all time and can therefore not be labelled as such in the article - a pedigree one should use only very sparingly. Outside British sentiment, incl. misused and non-existent quotes attributed to Pele, there isn't very much to back this claim of being among the very greatest.

[edit] Don Revie

Much Kuds For Removing The Vandalism on Don's Page, however the 75 eurpoean cup final appearance for leeds was actually under Jimmy Armfield, don left in the summer of 1974 to manage england, I've corrected this on don's page. Chappy84 12:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was: very silly of me, a Leeds man since 1972! Thanks for the message bigpad 12:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja throwing star comin' atcha!

The Running Man Barnstar
For your continual stream of high-end snooker topic edits. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Stanton, I am overwhelmed! Much appreciated, Patrick. bigpad 14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You've done a lot of good work! It's well deserved. However, and I mean this only constructively, lately (last couple of days) you seem to be forgetting (surely not ignoring!) some of the basics. I urge you to review WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV again. Alex Higgins and many other snooker bios have very serious problems with all three of these core policies. That you know personally that something is factual isn't enough; it has to be attributable to a citable source. I don't think anyone's going to go on a deletion spree of every unsourced assertion in a snooker bio (yet), but the PoV and sourcing problems actually are seriously endangering many of these articles. I'm suprised that many of them have not been targeted yet. It is better to have a short but solid article than a long one filled with supposition, opinions, unproven allegations, and purported facts that the reader cannot be certain someone didn't just make up. Articles of the latter variety get deleted, with extreme prejudice, every hour of every day. And unsourced material can be preserved on the talk page until sourced, so it's not like it'll be lost. Just some words to the wise.  ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: Compare Walter Lindrum (just short of Good Article status, because it mostly cites sources generally at the end instead of in-line) and Irving Crane (a G.A.), to Alex Higgins and some of the ones flagged with {{Magazine}} (which Alex Higgins probably should be), such as Ronnie O'Sullivan and Marlon Manalo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Tell me, how does one cite frequent references on TV to the likes of that break Higgins had in 1982? I'm not such an anorak that I note this down every time I hear it or see a reference to it. And isn't the opinion of a world champion, Dennis Taylor, that a particular shot was "extra special", shall we say, evidence that it *was extra special? How is the reality of a snooker shot to be represented when it is on video? There appears to be no leeway given here when the reference is the viseo listed at the bottom of the page. And I don't understand your point about my having edited other snooker pages recently that apparantly betrays a POV. Which ones are you referring to? bigpad 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
TV: Template:Cite episode should do the trick; it's more intended for episodic television, like Friends or Stargate SG-1, but all the needed fields seem to be present. I took extensive notes while watching the WPBA Carolina Classic (women's nine-ball), and will be using this citation template shortly myself. Taylor's opinion: Um, well, no. The thing to do here would be to directly quote him instead of generalizing it to a statement of fact about the excellence of someone or something. I.e., quote what is provably factual (that Taylor said X about Y) and let his words speak for themselves; our readers are good at drawing conclusions. :-) Describing a snooker shot: I'm honestly not sure I have a definitive answer to that. I think some would label it original research, under the "novel synthesis" clause. Others wouldn't. It doesn't really come up much. In this particular case, as I said elsewhere I think it's questionable that a nitty-gritty shot description is actually of encyclopedic (vs. snooker magazine) value; I'd say just drop that segment, and then there's no issue left. If you do want a definitive answer to this, I think the question probably has to be asked elsewhere. I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:Attribution, since WP:ATT is intended to replace WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR, and this question actually could touch on all three policies/guidelines. I.e., you'll probably get the most comprehensive and balanced answer there rather than at one of the separate pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Forget that last sentence. I see that you didn't say that. One thing, though, it seems as if you are now my personal "guardian angel". But the problem is that I don't want one, even a good one!
Nothing personal. I'm one of the cue sports articles' guardian angels, and sometimes that means I do some hand-holding for a while, but I don't "spy" on people or anything. I've already moved on from pointing you in a direction or two to now trying to rein in the overly ardent Bart Versieck, who means well but is adding enormous piles of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL to these articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Higgins' talk page, you mentioned dating the video, which I'll try and do. But it's listed as a BBC video, and the link is to the BBC website. Is there any doubt that it's genuine? bigpad 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case the genuineness (mmm, that almost looks like Guinness doesn't it?) isn't the issue; it's simply a necessary bit of informativeness. Makes it concrete and ultimately more verifiable if that ever did become an issue to someone, as opposed to "Well, it was, um, I dunno, back when, sometime." Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent cleanup, by the way, with the de-gunking edits of the last few hours; Alex Higgins in particular was greatly improved. The one that probably needs it most is Ronnie O'Sullivan. I worked on it for about an hour already, but it's still in really bad shape and I'm dead tired so I'm leaving it to others to try to repair it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schtubs

Can you please not remove stub tags from articles like Mark Selby; at only 9 sentences and no sources (other than a misformatted one for winnings), it can't be anything but a stub. :-) Its important that those stay on there, since their stub categorization tells WP:SNOOKER that these artices are in dire need of further work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok Stanton, no worries. I've work to do to that page but it's one of many! bigpad 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Higgins

Hi Bigpad, I'm sure you are aware of this,[2], will let it alone for now, but it will have to be addressed. Thanks Regards --Domer48 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QUB McMordie/Mandela

Hi, took the liberty of adding a different citation RE McMordie/Mandela, from an article on the QUB website. Hopefully, it'll meet with User:The Fashion Icon's approval, as it would be a shame to have an edit war over a relatively small matter. (Not that I felt the original cite was lacking.) Mark H Wilkinson 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged. The other guy was playing silly buggers over a minor matter and I would have referred it to an administrator if he had persisted with his unreferenced revisions. bigpad

[edit] Mark Gastineau

Hi, I've asked user "Caltas" why he effectively undid my revisions of that page, meaning that your reversion to his edit has restored the full-of-superlative content that was there before I did my edit! bigpad 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It can at times be difficult to distinguish between legitimate edits that remove a lot of content and vandalism when no edit summary is specified, especially when the edit is made by an anonymous user (you weren't logged in at the time of the edit). The best way to handle this (whether you're logged in or not) is to include a detailed edit summary with your revision, and if it still gets reverted, then simply let the person who reverted know on his or her talk page, as you have done. Talmage 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't you who was anonymous. It looks as if we were trying to rollback edits made by 66.210.114.195. It may have been your edits were inadvertently overridden in the process. Sorry, it happens sometimes when trying to monitor literally hundreds of pages for vandalism. Let me know if I can help any. Talmage 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to keep an eye on the page. What you'll need to do in cases of vandalism is give the user a specific final warning if vandalism continues, such as {{subst:uw-vand4}}. See Wikipedia:warnings. If the user continues to vandalize, you can request an administrator block the vandal here. However it's usually important that the vandal first receive a final warning, or only warning template before an administrator will be willing to block. You could facilitate warnings and administrator requests with Twinkle if you'd like. It doesn't require any installation, only modification of some Wikipedia settings, assuming you aren't using Internet Explorer. Talmage 06:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gastineau revisited

I see your point about the pattern of vandalism by the anonymous editor. I gave a uw-vandalism4 warning today and cautioned them that any further disruptive edits from that address may be grounds for an immediate block. Please advise (or report to WP:AIV) if the editor comes back. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Snooker request

As a member of WikiProject Snooker, it is requested that you watchlist at least the following pages:

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker - if the project members do not pay attention to changes at the project page, especially its talk page, effective collaboration will be nearly impossible and the project would eventually fail.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Wanted snooker bios - this is an important part of the project's to-do list.
  • Snooker - our main article, frequently subject to vandalism and nonsense edits that (historically) have sometimes taken hours or even an entire day to be fixed
  • Snooker season 2006/2007 - another important article
  • Snooker world rankings 2006/2007 - another important article
  • One or more player articles of your choice that you'd like to "adopt" as a guardian against vandalism, PoV-pushing, etc.

Keeping in touch with the rest of the team via the project pages, and keeping an occasional eye on core articles will go a long way to strengthening the project and protecting the articles. Thank you for your time and attention. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do Stanton and glad to help. bigpad 16:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KM or miles

I left a message on the border talk page. I can see the point but side with the MOS (I found the relevent section). --sony-youthpléigh 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PRtalk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Montgomery

Hi, I reverted because I thought it was an unnecessary qualification. There are no other sources to suggest that Montgomery thought differently about his origins (some sources suggests that there are others with a contrary view), the quote is from a reliable, verifiable source, and there is nothing to suggest that the Inish Times made it up to follow a particular agenda (and what else are newspapers but things for recording what people said and did?). If you have a source that implies that Montgomery did not think this way himself in this way then great, but if not then this is the best information that we have at the moment. MAG1 21:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you're coming from re 'other sources' but the important point is that the Irish Times does not quote its source as to Montgomery's "Irishness". Thr reliability of newspapers is open to debate, even one as good as the IT. On what basis did it make this very big assertion: possibly from a website? There is no way that this statement can be left unchallenged, even if there's no problem is saying sth like "one significant source states that ....", as you are right to say that there are no contrary sources at the moment bigpad 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck

The Imperial War Museum disagrees, which is a bit odd. Perhaps it would be better to say something like Bismarck firing during the Battle of the Denmark Straits to remove the contention? Benea 11:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

None of us are infallible I suppose, and the IWM is no exception. I'm happy to assume it's a mistake on their part then. Kind regards, Benea 12:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syd Millar

I've just made a small change to the references section - if you have ref in the main text with a footnote, you don't need to worry about repeating the URL link in the references section, it will go there automatically.

On the BBC story I linked to it gives his name as "John Sydney Millar" but I have to admit that I have never seen John in connection with him anywhere else - do you have any idea about this? Is is true?--Bcp67 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for fixing-up the refs bit: I always have problem with them!
The UK honours list from mid-2005, when he got his CBE, lists him as Sydney Millar http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=57665&geotype=London&gpn=8&type=Supplement
I asked Jim Stokes, who wrote that article, there now and he says his source was another journalist or news website. I suggest this is much more unreliable than the UK government (effectively) and so have removed the "John" from this article: ok? All the best, bigpad (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. I took the "John" from the BBC article I included but my main reference book (John Griffith's Phoenix Book of International Rugby) just says Sydney and he always shows in team listings as "S.Millar" so I don't think "John" is verifiable either.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Stephen Hendry

I'll keep an eye on it - I agree the proposed changes, although only minor in terms of size, are not really of the correct tone for an unbiased statement of facts - the last thing wikipedia needs or wants is fan advocacy creeping into these articles. SFC9394 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronnie O'Sullivan

The O'Sullivan page is very sensationalist, probably due in part to his 'colourful' nature. Good luck in cleaning in up although I suspect you'll run into very persistent resistance. I've lost count of the number of times I've reversed an edit on that page because it was just plain factually wrong or a POV statement and then come back and found it back in. WalterMitty (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck (2)

Do you mind if I copy your messages to me in Bismarck's Talk? I think it merits public discussion. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly reminder

Edit summary reminder
Hello. I noticed that your edit to German battleship Bismarck did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". There is also a tool you can check to see your current usage of edit summaries. Thanks, -MBK004 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links on Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Hi Bigpad, I'm afraid I agree that the external link you are placing on Sarbanes-Oxley Act is not appropriate. It links to a page that tells us that a study is underway. Its plausible that the report at the end of the study could have a place as a source for that article, but a link to a page saying the study exists adds nothing of substance to the article and simply isn't appropriate. Best, Gwernol 20:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly have to agree with you about the quality of the article. It needs some serious work. I keep it on my watchlist because it seems to be a bit of a spam magnet. I'm not about to swim in those shark-infested waters either, at least not yet :-) Best, Gwernol 21:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

That anonymous IP user from the Dublin area has also been POVing on the Aoife Hoey, Sharon Foley, and Siobhán Hoey articles. I have been one of the few people who have confronted him about his vandalism and POVing, but this user is very persistent on this. This has now included a personal attack.[3] Below are several links from the Dublin ISP user shown below:

  • 213.190.141.211, 84.203.1.58, 194.125.97.208, 213.202.149.105, 213.190.141.210, 213.202.132.52, 194.125.98.62, 194.125.52.12, 212.2.170.84, 194.125.76.92, 194.125.21.131, 213.202.183.229, 213.202.174.145, 194.125.71.53, and 78.16.67.220.


Do we have a previous issue with a sockpuppet account that is Irish based? It makes you wonder. Chris (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I sent it into an administrator during the Aoife Hoey controversey a couple of weeks ago, but I was told to hold off because of the article discussion. At least four other administrators are aware of this issue and are keeping tabs on this though. Chris (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mark Williams

Ok, we obviously have differing views on the way the article should be - but its not a big deal on this particular issue. Anyway i'd like to say that I appreciate your contributions, and that I will try to add references and resources for the article. Samasnookerfan (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes my mind is full of snooker results and stuff, i've watched snooker since I was 7 and I know everything about it. Thats why I add it to wikipedia as at least it may serve some kind of purpose! Samasnookerfan (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi bigpad I have been working hard on the Mark Williams article adding references and putting it in some kind of order, and adding parts esspecially to the 'early career' section. I'd like to know what you think of it, as the article was pretty poor and I hope its made a noticeable improvement. Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yes I see what you mean after all there the results to look at on seperate articles. Samasnookerfan (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Davis

Hi, I noticed your recent edit to undo a load of things I did to the Davis article. I just wanted to let you know that I'm pushing this article to featured status and as such I need to remove wordiness, abbreviations that aren't explained, non-encyclopaedic language and I must provide citation for all assertions of fact. Perhaps you'd consider working with me to improve the article which, currently, is in a very poor state. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the point about the article is that you've queried almost every claim made. That would be fine if no references were provided, but there is an extensive "Notes and References" section at the bottom. An enclo. must be just that, but it also has to read well. To follow the line you have taken would mean that all articles of the top snooker players would need a substantial overhaul and would not look the part. What is an article to be: is it a PhD, where every substantial claim has to be footnoted? It think not but I am def. not an expert on wider Wiki. policy. The Davis article is actually not bad and is factually very accurate, but I'm sure improvements can be made, which I'll certainly help with. But I can't agree that it needs every point cited and footnoted, as appears would be the case through the approach you are suggesting? All the best, bigpad (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again bigpad, thanks for your response. I believe all snooker articles do need a major overhaul. There's not a single featured or A class article between them and pretty much anyone can write a B-class article providing no references and without writing decent prose! I'm 100% certain the article is perfectly accurate but like many snooker articles (e.g. all the tournaments, rankings etc) there's little or no evidence to prove it. And under scrutiny, particularly at WP:FAC, this wil be the downfall of the candidacy! I believe that a lot of Davis' stuff can be cited using online sources (which I'm starting to do) but perhaps you have some paper references we can use? In either case I'd really appreciate your help in getting the article improved (which I think, despite the odd {{cn}}, it already is!)... Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck

This was not intended to dispute the manor of her demise, just that she sank. Sank is neutral is it not? It does not imply she was sunk, or that she was scuttled. No? Dapi89 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, believe it or not, despite your intentions being quite clear, "sank" is not quite 'neutral' enough, in that it implies that it was not sunk. "Lost" is the normal way of referring to a ship that goes down at sea, under whatever circumstances, and is the best word. The question of the sinking produces quite emotive words on occasions. All the best, bigpad (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I always try to keep an eye on the ship page and fix things. I am fairly proud of that little compromise. Narson (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luftwaffe Commander

Please note that Oberst Martin Harlinghausen was not just a pilot at that time. He was a commander of the Luftwaffe's Atlantic division. I believe someone of that standing should be mentioned, if only briefly. I don't understand why the reverting of such material is damaging to the article. If anything the article misses out a mass of detail and needs to be expanded. It's quite poor as it stands. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not adding information "that did not happen"! The events discribed in that section, aside from the proposed He 111 attack on the British ships, all happened. It is not a speculative section at all. Furthermore, it is a bit difficult to claim it is speculative when the sinking section in particular, not to mention the assumptions made about Lütjens intentions (that are in other related articles as well). The mass of information on second thoughts is more detail than wikipedia allows. But a glaring error is the failure to mention that Bismarck failed to refuel when she had the chance. Also not mentioned, until I put it in, was the fortunate episode U-556, which had spent its torpedeos - which I have now added. The failure to mention the rescue of 5 suriviors by U-Boat is also significant (if the Brit survivors of Hood are deemed worthy enough to mention then they should too). This notion that Bismarck's boilers were working is semi-false. Salt water was getting into the feeding lines which could have blown up. Then of course was the fracture of the main steam pipes - a case made worse by continuous firing during the night. Also the failure to mention that Lutjens had been reported to by Group West on 25 May RN ship was following him, yet he continued to believe he was so. It also fails to mention that Bismarck could have been brought to battle much sooner, had it not been for Tovey's errors which gave Lutjens a 150 mile advantage. Regards Dapi89 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, other than the point about refuelling, about which I obviously read your mind!, these points are not critical but can be added without problem since they are useful. I need to check, too, to see whether Bismarck actually received the message from Group West about not being tracked by British rader. I'ver a feeling she didn't. And where are the boliers referred to? I don't see what you're getting at here unless it's in that section re "criticism of design" which I hate but recognise is valid. Are you speaking of what isn't mentioned, but which I'll add, that the ships' engines were undamaged when she went down? All the best, bigpad (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) {Sorry, the bit about the engines working fine is there bigpad (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)}

[edit] Scharnhorst, Hood, Gneisenau

Hi.

Could I get some help from you on these pages as an expert on Naval stuff. I have a problem with an editor you might or might not be familiar with, I keep having to revert his edits which are deeply silly, and insists on continuing an edit war. He is an edit war veteran, does not compromise and won't listen. Perhaps you could help. Dapi89 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)