User talk:EALacey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Matt Messias

Hi. Thanks for the B, and the constructive comments left at the article talk page. I have tried to clarify parts of your critique on that page, so that those viewing the page in the future might see both our viewpoints.

With regard to the "timeline" nature of the prosaic structure, that is more than likely to occur in articles about sports officials due to the multi-level system which prevails in their quest for promotion "up the ladder" towards the World Cup Final appointment which every referee dreams of, but few achieve. I believe that to overly 'shuffle the pack' would be to cause confusion, rather than relay the information in an effective manner, and quite simply end up looking a mess. Nevertheless, I have been into the article and combined some of the paragraphs, as you suggested, and am satisfied with the improvement for myself.

The match scorelines and scorers are an admitted trivia in comparison to the important achievements which form the core of the Matt Messias article. They do retain some relevancy to what is being recounted. However, trivia in sections has been avoided, and the extra touches are usually included in referee articles as points of interest, and in helping the reader to perhaps recall some of the incidents alluded to. They also seem to please some of the "statisticians" out there (one or two articles are heaving unnecessarily with statistics, and I would one day like to devote a bit of time to removing the rafts of figures and trivial inserts which are spoiling them (e.g. Howard Webb).

I further feel that referee articles would appear very flat and monotonous without the embellishments. However, should any editor feel the opposite, they will treat the article accordingly I expect. Unfortunately, a particular quirk of the referees' job is that, while observers and critics are intensely interested in any faux pas and negativity which might befall them, or indeed more minor controversial episodes, they are not at all interested in delving deeper into the positive aspects of the subject's life i.e. family, hobbies, sometimes even what their other paid employment is. All this makes it tough to create a balanced article such as that accorded to a 'hero' instead of an 'anti-hero', and often the real story is only uncovered when auto/biographies are published, usually after their retirement. I often joke to my colleagues that referees have to pass infamy guidelines, not notability!

Best wishes, and thanks once again. Ref (chew)(do) 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have now clarified the context in which the "Messias" translation is included - see this diff. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Sometimes you are wright! Sometimes I am rihgt!

Sometimes we are wright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.46.129 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus.

The anonymous user has begun trolling (or so it seems) concerning the whole "Iaso" business. I've checked the sources he claims, and demonstrated numerous times how he's making connections where there are none, and developing his own theory- hence, original research. I don't want to drag you into it (although you did leave a comment willingly), as the whole thing is a mess to read, but honestly, I feel like I need some support just to be assured that I'm not insane, here. I suppose the time is nearing when the anon should just be ignored, but I'm not one to intentionally drop business, and I typically take the opportunity to have the last word, especially when one is spouting nonsense.--C.Logan 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there really no warning template for persistent promotion of original research? Adding original syntheses of evidence for views that aren't notable in the first place really ought to be leading this anonymous IP on the road to being blocked, but I'm not certain how to proceed. Any ideas? It seems, once again, the Wikipedia procedures aren't very well matched to this kind of issue. Please see what I've added at User talk:72.186.213.96. We need as many distinct good-faith editors as possible adding further warnings under this heading as often as Anonymous junks up Iaso. And we need as many good-faith editors as possible watching Iaso so that it can be kept clean without three-revert situations. Wareh 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your involvement. As you can see, he or she seems to ignore your rather clear and fair explanation and persists with the nonsense. There doesn't seem to be a sufficient variety of warnings for this type of disruption, which is unusual (there should certainly be, at least, a template warning for general incivility, rather than personal attacks specifically).--C.Logan 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

EALacey, No apologies needed. I think this person has been so resistant to engaging in discussion that further talk page posts can be removed--unless, that is, that s/he starts bringing forward good sources and stops relying on original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how D partner?

you should see the passion if you haven't lately. I have offspring and I do occasional serious edits 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what?

i never touched the x factor page i dont even like x factor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.91.239 (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horace Odes & J. Michie

If you're still interested in Horace you might like to read my remarks on this topic. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nero comments

Thanks for your input -- outside opinion is greatly appreciated. The only issue I have is still with the damnatio -- I have two references (one from an academic journal) stating that he was declared damnatio. However, we could probably temper it by mentioning that it wasn't exactly enforced by Otho.

Might I ask a favor. Once the page is unprotected, would YOU mind implenting the changes you suggested. I would do it myself but Hoshi has a habit of wholescale reverting anything I put in, even cited text. I think changes placed in by a third party observer would be less likely to trigger an edit war.

Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to intro

I like your additions to the intro as they've balanced the rather unique slant on Nero's rule presented there. Unfortunately, it looks like they've been unilaterally reverted by Hoshidoshi, and reverted again after I replaced it. If you have any additional input on some compromise solution, it would be appreciated. Djma12 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Alfred Edward Housman

Hi. I looked over your revert today, and gave the matter some thought. The section that was removed, which you undid, does give me some misgivings; Firstly, it is sub titled synopsis, and secondly there are no sources or references given. Also, the section appears to be much more discussive than the rest of the article - in fact I think it resembles a dissertion. Under the circumstances and applying AGF I think it possible that the anon ip was removing original research. I wonder if you would be willing to look over that section again, compare it against a prior version, and consider whether it should in fact be excised. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will look into the article history and see what preceded the "synopsis" section. If it is suitable, even if "stubby", I will substitute it. Please feel free to review and amend me, or disagree before I start (it won't be immediately!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Beat me to it! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am the author of the Shropshire Lad synopsis. I know that you first reinstated it after an anonymous editor removed it, have thought about whether to delete it, and have acted in good faith. However it would be better, if you think it should go, to follow normal procedure for so large an edit and raise the matter in discussion (and, not with a guillotine deadline in your favour) on the Article Discussion Page. That is the normal procedure for courtesy and good manners between editors in WP, as you, an editor of 2 years standing, probably know. The source for the synopsis is, like any literary work article, the work itself, and the themes are presented in sequence as they appear in the poems. Hence it is quite justifiable as encyclopedic content, and is not Original Research any more than any reading of any literary work. I'm quite happy to discuss this more, and would have been happy before, but I am not happy that you and the guy above have made this major deletion without consulting in the usual way, and preferably contacting me as the contributing editor. So I have reinstated it now give you the opportunity to present your case. Hope we can sort this out, I am here most days and am not unreasonable Eebahgum (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I read your piece on the talk page (LesssHeard has also added now) and I do understand your misgivings about the continuity question. Indeed if you had asked me three months ago I would have shared your view completely, and can only say that it was the process of extracting the synopsis that led me to the conclusion that there was, at least, a themed narrative of a diffuse and allegorical nature. Anyhow, I don't want to lay down the law in any way at all. I do think a synopsis of some sort was needed, and I'll be very interested to hear your reactions to my reply. I may also attempt a brief introductory statement of the kind I suggest so you can see what I have in mind, of course revertible/able (aaagh) if you want to follow some other course. Do look at Winterreise. Very best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posh

Thanks, I think that your edits have been very helpful. Currently swamped by life, at the moment, but I will try to look at Port Out, Starboard Home and give it the boost that it deserves. Cheers. Howfar (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political Parties..?

A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conscript Fathers

I just wrote a new article on Conscript Fathers. It has to do with members of the ancient Roman Senate. Since it looks like you are quite familar with the topic perhaps you could look it over and tweak the article as necessary if you have time. Thanks. --Doug talk 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)