| Revision as of 21:56, 10 April 2016 editCDRL102 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,390 edits →Reversion of latest edit by CDRL102← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:17, 10 April 2016 edit undoDavey2010 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers142,512 edits Stop filling the talkpage with moans - If you're reverted then you're reverted for a reason - Take it up with whoever reverts instead of filling thisNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| My understanding of the image policies on Misplaced Pages are that large images are ok in the context of the article. I'm sorry you felt that I had made a personal attack on you, this was not the intention, my comment was designed to give constructive criticism on your content] (]) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | My understanding of the image policies on Misplaced Pages are that large images are ok in the context of the article. I'm sorry you felt that I had made a personal attack on you, this was not the intention, my comment was designed to give constructive criticism on your content] (]) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == Why changes to the Clarawood page by another editor were undone == | |||
| The edits made by CDRL102 have been undone for several reasons. Firstly they removed a lot of information under the heading of a cleanup and also tags stating that the article had not been written properly and needed to be written by someone qualified to do so. The inference is namely therefore that the page was not written properly or by someone qualified to do so. | |||
| The creator and author of the article is in fact not only qualified at degree level on the subjects concerned but is also a very long term resident of Clarawood with direct experience. Anything which was included in the article as originally written and now restored is not only factual but is referenced and able to be referenced under the Misplaced Pages accepted guidelines and practices, as has been previously discussed with another editor. | |||
| I have, for the sake of not getting into an edit war, removed the anecdotal portion at the end. | |||
| Please, if you have anything to discuss on the Clarawood article, raise a comment on the Talk page rather than editing blankly as it may be the case that your edit is unecessary. Thankyou ] (]) 21:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm trying to help this page, blatant trivia and irrelevant comments about street lights will get it deleted, there are street lights everywhere, we don't mention them. But I can't break the revert rule so it'll just have to go to review, if it stays, OK, if it get's deleted, too bad. ] (]) 13:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD, Deletion Review, edit back to previous state, referencing, notability etc== | |||
| This article has been reinstated after a deletion review and relisted for AfD since it had been listed previously and closed out of process after only 1 hour. As mentioned in the AfD I would ask anyone participating or interested to ensure they read the full breadth of comments etc in various places before concluding anything. | |||
| Over the next few days I intend to expand on the General Reference section substantially and this should satisfy the article's previous detractors. ] (]) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Reversion of latest edit by CDRL102 == | |||
| ] has removed a portion of the opening text of the article citing that what was said was an opinion. CDRL102 very clearly did not check the reference for the edited statement which was to a report called "Poverty Amongst Plenty" which studied Clarawood and concluded that it was a working class area situated amongst more affluent ones such as those named. This was based on a pilot study of demographic and other measures which, as CDRL102 is clearly unaware, was the starting point for the development of what is now known in Northern Ireland as the Multiple Deprivation Measures and Targetting Social Need, which are the official Government demographic statistics which are used by every Government Department and Local Council to determine where and how to spend public money. In other words the edit was ill judged, the reason given was totally without foundation and fallacious and the statement as reverted to is absolutely and totally factual and demonstrable and was referenced to a solid academic report. I have absolutely no qualms about reverting the edit and CDRL102 can accuse me of acting like a page owner or simply reverting everything that another editor does, but before they make any further edits they should be ensuring that they know what they are talking about. They have demonstrated in this instance that not only do they not know what they are talking about and asserting, but that they cannot even read references. ] (]) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| You're incapable, that is all. ] (]) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:17, 10 April 2016
 | Northern Ireland Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Regarding Aerial View of Clarawood
Google Earth very clearly allows under its copyright rules for fair use of its images including on the internet. I have therefore re-added the image to the commons and on the Clarawood page
- Wikimedia Commons, where the file was located, does not allow merely fair use images. Anything there must be free for use elsewhere, including commerical redistribution. See Commons' fair use policy. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Point taken on the fair use policy, I am new to this as you will appreciateClarawood123 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Image size and so on
@Clarawood123: Please read WP:IMGSIZE. Thumbed images are preferred over fixed-width images. Note especially "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. 300px), which forces a fixed image width. Where px is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays).
" The image resolutions that you have reinstated are too big; while you may be connected to high-speed internet, there are parts of the world where it still might take ages to download a Misplaced Pages page and large images are certainly not helping. Additionally, you have removed the WP:Original research tag without solving the problems. Until they have been solved, the tag should remain in place. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- You clearly haven't understood the original research page you direct me to as it very clearly says that while information must be attributable it does not have to actually be attributed in the article. I can assure you that all information on the Clarawood Misplaced Pages page is attributable. As you are clearly not well informed enough on the subject of Clarawood to know this my recommendation for you would be to stick to editing pages on subjects you actually know about and are able to make informed decisions about.
- Whilst there may be parts of the world where the bandwidth etc causes delays with large pictures, the vast majority of people viewing the Clarawood page will be high speed broadband users mainly from Clarawood itself. That is why I have reversed your edits.
- PS you describe yourself as a Grammar Nazi, I found the English grammar on your page not quite perfect, also if you are a linguistics expert you will know that Sanskrit actually emanates from Europe in the first place not Asia
- First of all, I'd like you to read the Talk page guidelines, in particular the section about "Layout". Secondly, you do not own this page; anyone is allowed to edit it. My contributions are focussed more on the Wikipedian "looks" of the page, rather than contents. Finally, you are disregarding mobile users who have tiny screens, no broadband, and might have to pay a lot, depending on their provider. PS, your PS is an example of a personal attack and is just uncalled for. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of the image policies on Misplaced Pages are that large images are ok in the context of the article. I'm sorry you felt that I had made a personal attack on you, this was not the intention, my comment was designed to give constructive criticism on your contentClarawood123 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Categories: