Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:10, 15 April 2007

Toolbox | ToDo | Sandbox | WIP'S | Commons | Meta-Wiki | Wiktionary

Please click here to leave me a message.

Archives

2006 Archive

Scotland Map

Can you please tell me how the map you keep reverting to could possibly be better than the one I tried to change it to? The map you keep reverting to is misleading for readers making them think Scotland isn't a part of the UK and is not in the same style used by all other UK countries. Somethingoranother 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How dare you threaten me in such a manner when I am trying to correct the Scotland article. The fact that you so blatantly refuse to accept the map style used by all other UK countries which is inarguably more correct than the one you seem so stuck on only proves that you are trying to portray an image of Scotland outside of the UK. As I said on the discussion page if and when Scotland becomes a separate country then the map you want will be correct. While Scotland remains part of the UK please refrain from trying to push your Scottish nationalist view onto the article. You remind me that I'm breaking 3RR then how are you not breaking 3RR too? You keep breaking NPOV for using a map which differs from fact. Anyway I've reported you to an administrator and they said I can change the map to the one used by all other UK countries as it seems to have no point of view and that if you revert it again you will be blocked for 24 hours. Somethingoranother 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

World Cup

Hello. First, I would like to apologize for being a pain in trying to append the World Cup Historical Rankings. I thought the first time did not post and I went at it again. But now I realize that there must be some requirements. Is there a way I can post that table? If not in the World Cup page, then somewhere else in Misplaced Pages? Are thre any specific guidelines I would have to follow? Thanks for your help, and again, sorry for causing heartburn.

-)

princess_lily— Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess lily (talk • contribs)

Hi there. It is no trouble to ask. I removed the table due to other editors recently questioning it. All articles here at wikipedia have an associated "talk" page (confusingly called discussion on the tabs at the top). In the world cup talk page, Talk:FIFA World Cup a couple editors there have suggested it shouldn't be there as it is "original research", what that means in effect is that it isn't encyclopaedic work, but newly created ideas by yourself. If the historical rankings table is something which fifa or some other official body has produced then it will be fine and it can go back in, but if it is just something you have created then it isn't really ok. The other issue that the editors raised about it on the talk page was that you were using 3 points for a win - that obviously isn't historically accurate. You are welcome to post your thoughts and reasons why you think the table should be included on the world cup talk page - some discussion might be generated and a compromise might be reached, but for the moment I removed it just to be on the safe side. Best wishes, SFC9394 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of maps

Hi. As our in-house map expert, could you apply our standard location maps, as developed at WP:SCOWNB, to a couple of articles:

• Airdrie, North Lanarkshire
• Kirkwall

I know that you have explained to me how to do it myself before, but quite frankly I could not make head nor tail of it :) --Mais oui! 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

a.n. other: Wick, Highland. Cheers. --Mais oui! 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea

Hello, I'm Andrew from Hungary and I'm an amateur WP-writer but rather reader. In fact, my only article is the Hungarian Chelsea article. As I said, I'm amateur and I couldn't manage to link mine to the articles in other languages. So, I'd be pleased if you could make a link to the Hungarian article from the English one. Thanks for your help, Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.132.137.80 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Done. SFC9394 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Astroturf

Hi, I happened to be browsing a talk page and noticed your comments. It would be a good idea to welcome this editor and explain relevant policies such as WP:NOT, WP:ADVERT, and WP:COI before taking this to the Signpost or any other venue. Let's assume good faith and suppose this is a new editor who doesn't understand site policies yet. Durova 02:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I wasn't aware of the conflict of interest policy. It was my thought that someone who knew accurate information regarding the topic could share that information as long as it was done in a neutral way. I believe all of the information I provided was accurate and neutral, and the edits I made to the FieldTurf article were to neutralize the original language per the request of the "Advertising Box" at the top of the article.

I have written several objections on the FieldTurf article talk page with no responses or actions from other users. If there's not going to be any dialogue addressing the current concerns, and WP is not going to allow me to take action to address those concerns, then how will the article become neutral?

Here's an exmaple of the edits I attempted to implement. The following statement is currently on the FieldTurf article:

"To combat the inroads into the market by FieldTurf, Southwest Recreational Industries, the manufacturer of AstroTurf, duplicated the product so closely in its AstroPlay line that FieldTurf sue the American company for patent infringement. FieldTurf lost the suit for lack of evidence, and in late 2003 was ordered to reimburse Southwest Recreational Industries for approximately $4.3 million in legal expenses. However, in early 2004 Southwest Recreational Industries filed for bankruptcy, citing heavy debt and inability to keep up with rapid market growth."

How can an encyclopedic resource allow an argumentative and leading statement that was clearly negated in a court of law? This was purely written to make it appear like the modern AstroTurf product(s) are a knock-off of the FieldTurf product. And the last statement about SRI filing for bankruptcy adds no informative value to an article about FieldTurf, not to mention the resource is invalid.

FieldTurf is a major synthetic turf competitor, contributing to the replacement of what was once the most popular artificial turf, AstroTurf.

This statement is also argumentative, casts AstroTurf in a negative light, and in the least needs a verifiable reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tygast411 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for your comments. With regard to:

"I have written several objections on the FieldTurf article talk page with no responses or actions from other users. If there's not going to be any dialogue addressing the current concerns, and WP is not going to allow me to take action to address those concerns, then how will the article become neutral?"

The best procedure if no talk page discussion is generated (which can often happen with quiet articles) is to post the issue at Request for Comment which will bring it to the attention of a wide number of wikipedia editors who can then see whether the concern is valid and edit things appropriately. If you are from a Public Relations firm then it would be advisable to disclose that here on your user page to ensure other editors are aware of any potential conflict of interest. The main issue here is not that mistakes, inaccuracies or bias should not be addressed - it is simply that other editors are aware of what your motivation is for correcting them - i.e. it is not just as a joe public editor, but as a PR representative of the company in the article or one of its competitors. Transparency is all that is required. SFC9394 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I just posted a note at WP:ANI --Selket 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've dropped a note on the Signpost's suggestion page pointing to your comment on my talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at and make a few neutral edits to both the FieldTurf and AstroTurf articles. You recently removed a sentance fragement, "improving over the years so that today it performs and looks much more like natural grass." I agree with your edit and appreciate your neutrality. Moving forward, how can the AstroTurf article inform the WP user that AstroTurf isn't just the original product from the 1960s? How can we neutrally inform the reader that there have been numerous technological advancements to make the turf function and appear as close to natural grass as possible. Would it be neutral to list the technological advancements if credible sources were cited? Ben 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

SFC, when you get a second. Take a look at the edits that you rv'd and see if they're ok to be edited back into the AstroTurf article. If they're good to go, could you make the edits to the article yourself? Thanks. Ben 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments on one's own user talk page

I just posted this at User talk:Tygast411, and since it's about one of your postings there, I'm providing you with a copy:

While I too am a strong believer in WP:COI, I do want to correct what SFC9394 said. There is no policy that says that users may not delete content from their own user talk page, although sometimes "it is frowned upon". In general, if you want to remove stuff, it is considered courteous to archive it - see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page - but this is in no way mandatory. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To postscript, my comment was added due to the deletion of the talk thread. While I agree with your words that there is no policy John, I'm afraid an editor deleting a talk thread while it is still active and while I am replying to it is bad form. Editors may have the right to do so, but if they continually do so to active talking points when I am in discussion with them then they loose my good faith. In light of the nature of the discussions (a pretty serious conflict of interest) I think I was entirely right to request that these comments not be deleted while the matter remained unsettled. SFC9394 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(With apologies for the belated response). You have the right to request anything you want. What you don't have the right to do is to say that something is policy when it in fact is not. Yes, deleting something from one's user talk page while a conversation is ongoing is almost certainly bad form, but there is no policy authorizing a warning for bad form. And if a user choses to ignore your request, you may consider him uncivil or lose your good faith; just don't tell say that he violated policy by blanking.

I noticed another editor, below, said He has decided to blank his entire talk page, which I'm sure is against policy but I can't seem to find where I read that. I hope you've corrected this editor's misunderstanding, rather than encourage him to either continue to look for a non-existent policy, or (worse) to act as if such a policy existed.

Finally, please recognize that some editors may legitimately decide that they do not want to continue a discussion. Misplaced Pages has no rule requiring an editor to respond, and respond to a response, and so on, until both parties agree they are done. (If there were such a rule, vandals and trolls could force administrators to spend huge amounts of time arguing with them.) If another editor terminates a conversation with you, I strongly recommend that you turn your attention elsewhere, rather than arguing with that editor (on the editor's talk page) that the editor isn't finished with the discussion, and must talk to you. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, John, I don't have a clue what you are on about. "What you don't have the right to do is to say that something is policy when it in fact is not". Can you point out where I said that? You won't be able to - because I didn't - and I don't know what your motivation is for implying I did when I very definitely did not.

"If another editor terminates a conversation with you, I strongly recommend that you turn your attention elsewhere, rather than arguing with that editor" - when did that happen in the astroturf conversation? "Argue"? I think you are living in some parallel universe here - I am neither arguing nor posting excessively on anyone's talk page - and I am confused as to what your motivation is for making such an unfounded accusation.

I suggest you take your own advice and "recognize that some editors may legitimately decide that they do not want to continue a discussion". Thanks and goodbye. SFC9394 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:81.155.34.127_reported_by_User:Mais_oui.21_.28Result:.29 --Mais oui! 11:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gabrielleitao

Hi SFC9394, I see you have been following the activities of Gabrielleitao and he (I'm going to assume this is a "he") has been behaving inappropriately for a while. He has decided to blank his entire talk page, which I'm sure is against policy but I can't seem to find where I read that. I have also been following this user's edits for a while, and found that none of them are constructive and usually ignore protocol. I left him a warning which he also promptly ignored, as he did yours. Furthermore, I have seen identical editing behaviour from Kasparov, who has also ignored the two warnings for following protocol I left him. I have the feeling Gabrielleitao is a sockpuppet (or perhaps the "twin brother"). I don't know if you are an admin, but I was going to report his conduct if he continued his misbehaviour. Best regards, Icemuon 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In-house expert

I have mentioned you in despatches :)

• Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#The_map_for_a_place_in_England

--Mais oui! 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, you thoughts would be appreciated at Template talk:Infobox UK place#New maps as the maps could do some work. Cheers, Regan123 20:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-authoritative

Re: "How can a world snooker reference be non-authoritative? They are the world governing body!" — Doesn't mean that just because they host a tiny, unattributed, and unsourced pseudo-article on their website that it is an authoritative source of information. One shouldn't confuse an organization's authoritativeness with regard to what the current international professional tournament rules are, with authoritativeness when it comes to historical research. :-) Frankly I would just completely remove that link as a source since what it goes to has no reliability basis in Wikipedian terms. There has to be a better source, that actually has a named author and a bit more depth. Heh. — SMcCandlish ツ 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Wow, that was one heck of a sourcing run at Snooker! — SMcCandlish ツ 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Bailey (interfaith)

I saw your comment in another user's talk page, and came in as somebody unconnected with the first AfD. Based on the discussion at the AfD, it seems to me that Anthony Bailey (interfaith) is a recreation of an article that went to AfD—and I'm comfortable enough that I went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion. Good catch! —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I had just posted a question regarding his re-creation of Anthony Bailey (interfaith) on the authors talk page and then saw you'd nominated it for speedy deletion. I agree wholeheartedly. The Boy that time forgot 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy tagging it Fred, I wasn't sure if it had to go through AfD again or if it could just be speedy tagged straight away. SFC9394 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

? Map for Mendip Hills

Hi, In the past you've helped me out with some great maps (Chew Valley & Kennet and Avon Canal). I've recently been editing Mendip Hills & have now put it up as an FA candidate. Amongst the discussion on this (see Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills) there are several requests for a map, including a comment that a map is essential for FA status - is there any chance you could help me out?— Rod 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - a quick map of the Mendips would be wonderful as I think this is the only objection on FA that I can#t do anything about.— Rod

Thanks for the speedy work - are you happy for me to put it on the article page or will you? I've been offered the AONB organisations map - but they have gone back to investigate the copyright status etc.— Rod 22:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Claymores

Many thanks for comments. how does one go about proving the article, as references are not available on the internet? All fact are of course correct and documentised. Also, never noticed the derogatory desciption, thanks for bringing it up. The Clype 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once more, thanks. In response to your question, generally the source does include the quoted text, although admittedtly the email never described faded blinds, merely blinds.

Woodstock was a personal opinion so with hindsight should be removed.

The attack on a living person, I never saw as an attack however in the interests of trying to keep the article correct I will go back to the drawing board and re-write, trying to take out contentious comments. The Clype 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the contentious articles (ie biographic about a living person). Hopefully there will be no problem with my sources, as per my previous comment. Cheers The Clype 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Its/it's...

I'm going to re-revert your change to Lonnie Donegan (as you said was OK in your edit summary), but I wanted to let you know why. Yes, the flavor is a property belonging to the chewing gum, and with a regular noun, there certainly would be an apostrophe -- "chewing gum's flavor", not "chewing gums flavor". However, since we're dealing with the pronoun "it", things are a little different. The possessive form of "it" is "its", with no apostrophe, just as "hers" and "his" have no apostrophes. "It's" is a contraction of "it is" (or "it has"), so to use it in this case would mean not "the flavor of it" but "it is flavor". See the Wiktionary page for its for more information. Anyway, sorry for the long explanation, but I wanted to say why instead of just reverting without saying anything. :) Pinball22 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ninja throwing star comin' atcha!

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your continual stream of high-end snooker topic edits. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC) RolandR AV/I case i request you don't become an inadvertant accomplice to RolandR's malicious activity by presuming the location of his comments to be the correct one. he has ignored the notice issued under the text (relating to the personal attack on me) and created a seperate out of chronological order complaint to make his complaint be "first" on the read list. however, the history of the page indicates that i reported a personal attack on me and afterwards rolandR has posted his vandalism complaint above the section dealing with the issue. Jaakobou 13:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)