DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
::: If any editor believes that the subject of an article does not indeed warrant an article, they are very welcome to raise an AFD. If their investigation shows the subject to be "minor", then that's their educated opinion. That does NOT make them a liar, and troublemaker, or anything else...it's their reading of the citations. Referring to "anyone with half a brain", and referring further to lies (wholly unfounded), and changing this section header to what you have is an obvious continuation of your personal attacks, and I'll be extending your current block accordingly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
::: If any editor believes that the subject of an article does not indeed warrant an article, they are very welcome to raise an AFD. If their investigation shows the subject to be "minor", then that's their educated opinion. That does NOT make them a liar, and troublemaker, or anything else...it's their reading of the citations. Referring to "anyone with half a brain", and referring further to lies (wholly unfounded), and changing this section header to what you have is an obvious continuation of your personal attacks, and I'll be extending your current block accordingly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive reasons]]. You may still [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest any current block]] by using the [[WP:UTRS|unblock ticket request system]], but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 00:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)</div> |
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive reasons]]. You may still [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest any current block]] by using the [[WP:UTRS|unblock ticket request system]], but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 00:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)</div> |
||
:::Nope, I'm sorry, you're the one who's misrepresenting the matter. As I pointed out, ''repeatedly'', in response to your comments, [[WP:NPOL]] does not give greater weight to the "leader of a political party" at the city council level than it does to other city councillors — "garden-variety councillor" or "party leader", the person still has to pass [[WP:GNG]] by virtue of the quality of sourcing that has actually been provided. Whatever you think about whether the position is more notable in ''principle'' or not than a "garden-variety city councillor", Wikipedia's ''inclusion criteria for politicians'' do not grant the party leader a greater presumption of notability than the garden-variety councillor, if the quality of sourcing is not there to get him past GNG. I did not assert anything about the level of power that the leader does or doesn't have within the council's internal structure — I provided a ''completely'' accurate assessment of ''Wikipedia'''s inclusion standards for local politicians (no matter what role they held, they still have to pass GNG for it) which wasn't even ''remotely'' the same thing as what ''you're'' claiming that I said. |
|||
:::Secondly, I said ''nothing'' in the entire discussion that was in any way an allegation or personal attack against you. The ''worst'' thing I said about you at any point was that you were arguing with a strawman instead of with what I was actually saying, which is not an actionable comment (and you threw the word "strawman" at me too, so if it were an actionable comment you'd still be blocked right alongside me anyway.) You, on the other hand, called me an outright liar, which you're simply not allowed to do. And if you're allowed to characterize yourself as a productive editor of good character, then I'm allowed to point out that I most certainly have a reputation as a productive editor of good character as well — I've been around here since 2003, and do ''not'' have any sort of reputation as being a liar or a troll or a dishonest editor. (I've never once, for example, accumulated a single behavioral block in that entire time, not even a ten-minute timeout. If I were half as bad an editor as you seem to think, I'd have been banned years ago — but in reality, I'm actually a pretty well-respected contributor who's ''never'' once in an entire decade had to be formally sanctioned or disciplined with anything more than a minor "hey, you screwed up here, so be more careful about this next time, okay?") |
|||
:::Thirdly, I most certainly ''did'' do enough [[WP:BEFORE]] to be aware that the volume of available sourcing out there is not as strong as you're claiming; there are a fair number of reliable sources which mention his ''name'' in passing, but I did ''not'' a find a lot of sources which were ''about'' him in a ''substantive'' way. And at least one other commenter in the AFD discussion has ''also'' pointed out that ''they'' didn't find much substantive sourcing on a Google search either. And as I also pointed out, I am Canadian, and do not have ''access'' to the resources necessary to do a really comprehensive database search of past British media coverage — I can ''only'' go by what comes up on Google, and what I saw on Google was a lot of sources that just namechecked him in passing as a ''former'' councillor, and ''not'' a lot that actually constituted ''substantive'' coverage of his career ''while'' he was in office. If you think there are enough sources out there to get him over GNG, you're certainly more than welcome to find them and add them to the article — I said, right from the start, that the article could be kept if the sourcing were improved — but you're not entitled to just namecall and insult anybody who happens to disagree with you about the ''current'' state of the article. |
|||
:::And finally, just for the record, I asked for ''nothing'' in the ANI post except for somebody to ''review'' the situation and make their ''own'' decision about who was or wasn't at fault. I'm ''sure'' I would have been blocked or at least warned if Panda had read the discussion and decided that I was the one at fault, but that's not what happened. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:44, 24 August 2014
Who's Who AFD argument
Barney, do you know how many people are included in Who's Who, who would not be classed as notable by wikipedia criteria? The figure is probably somewhere around 30-40%. For instance District judges in the UK. District judges are group 7 judges according to the judicial pay scale subordinate to the 600 Circuit Judges, 107 High Court judges, yet are all listed in Who's Who. For example (Frances) Jane McIvor: District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), London, since 2001; Called to the Bar, Inner Temple, 1983; in practice on S Eastern Circuit; Actg Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, 1998–2001. Chm., Connexional Discipline Cttee, Methodist Church, 2005–. Does anyone think (Frances) Jane McIvor is notable solely because she has been "independently assessed by notability experts at Oxford University Press as being notable"? I don't. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwin Charles Cox, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages TD, Southern Railway and CVO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sir Joseph Thackwell may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- back to the Peninsula in 1813. It formed part of the hussar brigade attached to Graham's corps [see [[Graham, Thomas, Lord Lynedoch]], and at the passage of the Esla, on 31 May, Thackwell
- Cotton]]. He served with the 15th in the campaign of 1815. It belonged to Grant's brigade [see [[Sir Colquhoun Grant]], which was on the right of the line at Waterloo. Its share in the
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Sir Joseph Thackwell has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 13:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Lixxx235 (talk · contribs) - perhaps you missed that he's been dead a short while, trifling really - I can see how you were confused. He's been dead for now merely twice the time now that he was alive (78 years) - so that's only 155 years (OK, I know 78*2 isn't 155, but my maths is still more accurate than your basic reading. WP:TROUT. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Self-trout But still, AfDd. Sorry. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sir Joseph Thackwell
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sir Joseph Thackwell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://books.google.com/books?id=ECgJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=was+fourth+son+of+John+Thackwell,+J.P.,+of+Rye+Court+and+Moreton+Court,+Worcestershire,+by+Judith,+daughter+of+J.+Duffy.&source=bl&ots=B8LlUu8Oto&sig=oTv6lqkG8whmOxGvx26-C_1DaMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AAPyU6-xBaTgsATVoILYDg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=was%20fourth%20son%20of%20John%20Thackwell%2C%20J.P.%2C%20of%20Rye%20Court%20and%20Moreton%20Court%2C%20Worcestershire%2C%20by%20Judith%2C%20daughter%20of%20J.%20Duffy.&f=false. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TLSuda (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The source is public domain. Thanks for checking that WP:BEFORE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- We all make mistakes sometimes Barney. I immediately restored it. Though, it will probably be re-deleted anyways due to the lack of sources and poor quality. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think that assessment is about as intelligent as your initial assessment (which is to say, not exceedingly so). Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- We all make mistakes sometimes Barney. I immediately restored it. Though, it will probably be re-deleted anyways due to the lack of sources and poor quality. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Joseph Thackwell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph Thackwell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Thackwell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Civility?
Can you explain your edit summary in your revert of Special:Diff/621774029 please? If you want, I can get other diffs as well. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Lixx235 (talk · contribs) - please learn to civilly engage your brain as a safety mechanism to prevent you doing silly things. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- That is not an answer to my question. Could you please explain your edit summary in that revert? Thank you. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Lixxx235 (talk · contribs) - sorry for not asnwering your question. An "edit summary" is a summary of the edit. That is a summary is a short bit of text describing the changes made. It is entered in the box marked "Summary". I believe there is a summary of this atWP:EDITSUMMARY. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you for your understanding, it is greatly appreciated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Use of Sir prefix in article title
Hi Barney, jsut a polite request, in future could you refrain from using the title Sir (or Dame for that matter) in the title of new article creations. I have moved some of the articles you created previously such as Sir Robert McLean to Robert McLean (engineer). The only exception to the rule is Baronets, where it is generally correct to include their knighthood in the article title, as you correcly did with Sir Robert Pigot, 6th Baronet. Thanks Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Flaming Ferrari (talk · contribs) - thanks for your message. I commit to using the correct name, (i.e. only the full name) in future. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Winston S. Churchill
This is NOT repeat NOT just a variant of Churchill's name.
It is very specifically his pen name - he adopted it to distinguish his books from those of the then much more famous (!) American novelist of the same name!!!!!
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I do not dispute that. Unfortunately for you however, it is entirely irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- See Winston Churchill (novelist). The "S." occurs ONLY as a pen name - and is therefore only relevant at all in the context of the specific article dealing with Sir Winston as a writer. It is not entirely irrelevant to the "main" article, but it is clear where the primary relevance lies. Sorry about the tiny mind remark - uncalled for, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Getting angry above about it doesn't change the undeniable fact that it needs to go to the main subject. You've also broken WP:3RR. And I hate musicals, especially the one with the singing nuns. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your love (or otherwise) of musicals has, of course, precisely the same relevance to this argument as your (or even my) anger, or even which one of us broke WP:3RR first. Winston Churchill as writer is in this instance the "main article" - since the redirect can only refer to that subject and has nothing whatever to do with the "main subject" of the other article, which is (very properly) primarily about his political career. Is this worth asking for arbitration? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Probably be better for you just to drop it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reluctant to leave an error that reflects so badly on its perpetrator in place - so out of the purest kindness I am constrained to insist that the correct redirection remain when all the dust has settled. Unless an independent arbitrator deems otherwise, of course ... Actually, it would be better to have no redirect from Sir Winston's pen name at all (just delete the redirect altogether) than have it direct to an article (mostly) about his political career (a rather comprehensively unrelated subject). --Soundofmusicals (talk)
I have formally asked for arbitration on this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oop - don't dispute much, and put this one on the wrong page! On advice - I have redone this one to WP:3O. I don't think this one had anything to do with your blocking - hope not, anyway. I am being at least as sarcastic as you - this (for me at least) is good-natured banter - my only dispute with you is the question of where this redirect page should point! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Chesney Gold Medal
- added a link pointing to Sir John Hackett
- Parapsychological Association Outstanding Career Award
- added a link pointing to Richard Broughton
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
ANI thread
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_on_Winston_S._Churchill_.28redirect_page.29. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
User lies to AN/I, gets me blocked
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’ 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)- Thanks DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) - that's extremely useful. Can you please identify what exactly were the "personal attacks"? And which AFD was "disrupted"? In general I follow a policy of apologising for things that I've done wrong so I'd like to know. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh hang on, I've found it. To clarify, Bearcat (talk · contribs) has now added to his lies by making false allegations at WP:ANI. To clarify what happened, he wrote an AFD nomination that misrepresented the subject as only being a minor , and specifically mentioned the role of mayor. He made innuendo that the role of mayor was unimportant (which is technically true), but failed to mention that the gentleman was a long-time leader of the majority party on the council, and used inneundo to conflate the two unrelated. He also apparently omitted to conduct a WP:BEFORE search for sources because when such a search is performed a plethora of sources are to be found. When I politely pointed out this to him and gave him the opportunity to correct himself, he refused to do this, asserting things that are clearly not true to anyone with at least half a brain (that a leader of a party group is equally as important as a non-leader) and started to make personal allegations against me. He has now compounded his lies by writing further lies at WP:AN/I which have led a productive and editor of good character being blocked. WP:BOOMERANG should have applied to the petty vindictive request of a liar and a troll.
- I stated it was my policy to apologise for things that I have done wrong. However, as I have done nothing wrong in this case, no apology will be forthcoming. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- If any editor believes that the subject of an article does not indeed warrant an article, they are very welcome to raise an AFD. If their investigation shows the subject to be "minor", then that's their educated opinion. That does NOT make them a liar, and troublemaker, or anything else...it's their reading of the citations. Referring to "anyone with half a brain", and referring further to lies (wholly unfounded), and changing this section header to what you have is an obvious continuation of your personal attacks, and I'll be extending your current block accordingly. the panda ₯’ 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm sorry, you're the one who's misrepresenting the matter. As I pointed out, repeatedly, in response to your comments, WP:NPOL does not give greater weight to the "leader of a political party" at the city council level than it does to other city councillors — "garden-variety councillor" or "party leader", the person still has to pass WP:GNG by virtue of the quality of sourcing that has actually been provided. Whatever you think about whether the position is more notable in principle or not than a "garden-variety city councillor", Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for politicians do not grant the party leader a greater presumption of notability than the garden-variety councillor, if the quality of sourcing is not there to get him past GNG. I did not assert anything about the level of power that the leader does or doesn't have within the council's internal structure — I provided a completely accurate assessment of Wikipedia's inclusion standards for local politicians (no matter what role they held, they still have to pass GNG for it) which wasn't even remotely the same thing as what you're claiming that I said.
- Secondly, I said nothing in the entire discussion that was in any way an allegation or personal attack against you. The worst thing I said about you at any point was that you were arguing with a strawman instead of with what I was actually saying, which is not an actionable comment (and you threw the word "strawman" at me too, so if it were an actionable comment you'd still be blocked right alongside me anyway.) You, on the other hand, called me an outright liar, which you're simply not allowed to do. And if you're allowed to characterize yourself as a productive editor of good character, then I'm allowed to point out that I most certainly have a reputation as a productive editor of good character as well — I've been around here since 2003, and do not have any sort of reputation as being a liar or a troll or a dishonest editor. (I've never once, for example, accumulated a single behavioral block in that entire time, not even a ten-minute timeout. If I were half as bad an editor as you seem to think, I'd have been banned years ago — but in reality, I'm actually a pretty well-respected contributor who's never once in an entire decade had to be formally sanctioned or disciplined with anything more than a minor "hey, you screwed up here, so be more careful about this next time, okay?")
- Thirdly, I most certainly did do enough WP:BEFORE to be aware that the volume of available sourcing out there is not as strong as you're claiming; there are a fair number of reliable sources which mention his name in passing, but I did not a find a lot of sources which were about him in a substantive way. And at least one other commenter in the AFD discussion has also pointed out that they didn't find much substantive sourcing on a Google search either. And as I also pointed out, I am Canadian, and do not have access to the resources necessary to do a really comprehensive database search of past British media coverage — I can only go by what comes up on Google, and what I saw on Google was a lot of sources that just namechecked him in passing as a former councillor, and not a lot that actually constituted substantive coverage of his career while he was in office. If you think there are enough sources out there to get him over GNG, you're certainly more than welcome to find them and add them to the article — I said, right from the start, that the article could be kept if the sourcing were improved — but you're not entitled to just namecall and insult anybody who happens to disagree with you about the current state of the article.
- And finally, just for the record, I asked for nothing in the ANI post except for somebody to review the situation and make their own decision about who was or wasn't at fault. I'm sure I would have been blocked or at least warned if Panda had read the discussion and decided that I was the one at fault, but that's not what happened. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)