| Revision as of 15:27, 29 January 2015 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,317 editsm Signing comment by Richie bedfellows - "→Casual (subculture) : "← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:40, 29 January 2015 edit undoGhmyrtle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers130,576 edits →Casual (subculture) : rNext edit → | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| :I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. ] (]) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) | :I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. ] (]) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| They made sense right from the start. As i say, the confusion stems from the contribution written by whoever it is you fail to address about the need for an appropriate citation whilst arguing your right to revert such contributions with me. I'm glad you now find the wording acceptable. Perhaps you would be good enough to pass on your revised thoughts to the other username, or the one you have just left me a message on behalf of, under your 'Ghmyrtle' unsername... to be more precise. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | They made sense right from the start. As i say, the confusion stems from the contribution written by whoever it is you fail to address about the need for an appropriate citation whilst arguing your right to revert such contributions with me. I'm glad you now find the wording acceptable. Perhaps you would be good enough to pass on your revised thoughts to the other username, or the one you have just left me a message on behalf of, under your 'Ghmyrtle' unsername... to be more precise. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of ] - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. ] (]) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:40, 29 January 2015
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
The Signpost: 31 December 2014
- News and notes: The next big step for Wikidata—forming a hub for researchers
- In the media: Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap
- Traffic report: Surfin' the Yuletide
- Featured content: A bit fruity
- Recent research: Misplaced Pages in higher education; gender-driven talk page conflicts; disease forecasting
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hope I didn't tread on an article you planned to write...
Since you popped up on Walter de Clare so quickly... thanks for the tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all - I'm glad you started it. I have a good selection of books on the history of the Chepstow and Tintern areas, including the castle and abbey, so will see if I can find anything to add. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just ordered Anglo-Norman Studies 11 and requested the book on the Clares by Altschul through ILL... so hopefully that will help too. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Genesis
Looking at the 34 "BBC King on Genesis" articles, most of them mention that he continues to assert his innocence of the convictions which was why I felt the detail should be reverted back into the article. Sorry if I called it vandalism. I meant it was a widely known fact that ought to be retained.Xegit (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Another apology. This refers to the King article not the Genesis one.Xegit (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 January 2015
- In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints
- Featured content: Kock up
- Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
FitzOsbern
Hi, I just wanted to question the revert you made to Chepstow, regarding {f,F}itzOsbern. I've no particular preference as to which one is used, but I do think that we should be consistent across wikipedia. Do you not think we should use the same spelling on Chepstow as that used at William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford (whichever variation that might be)? --David Edgar (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I commented on this some time ago at Talk:William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford#Name, and probably don't want to add very much - except to say that we should be guided by what sources say. Without checking them all, I'm more used to using the lower case 'f' - though, now that you've pointed out the inconsistency, I'll be happy to revert myself. This source says 'Fitz-Osbern', this says 'Fitz Osbern', and this says 'fitz Osbern'.. for what they are worth! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would go with fitz Osbern, with both lower case and space (Incidentally, this is what Cadw use at Chepstow Castle). It's pretty obvious that this was the original form and the simplifications and standardisations of later years are no more than that. We should record subtleties.
- I have little enthusiasm for the "everything must be consistent" viewpoint, as it usually ends up as "Everything will be made consistent with the first article I happened across", with a distinct lack of research beforehand. This is particularly the case for WP, where the idea that one consistent format is applicable to everything, no matter its origin, is ludicrous. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I too am used to seeing "fitzOsbern" or "fitz Osbern" and have fought a rearguard action against "Fitzosbern" (and the like) for much of my time on Misplaced Pages.... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 January 2015
- WikiProject report: Articles for creation: the inside story
- News and notes: Erasmus Prize recognizes the global Misplaced Pages community
- Featured content: Citations are needed
- Traffic report: Wikipédia sommes Charlie
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Aust Ferry
I was vaguely looking at doing some spring cleaning and improvements on this article, but since I last looked at it, an IP has put a lot of unsourced content on it. I don't want to hit the "rv - unsourced" blunderbuss as I don't believe it's all false, but it'll need a bit of copyediting and retro-sourcing for the article's quality to stay stable. Any ideas on how to proceed? Ritchie333 10:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes... I'd missed all that. There is a lot of information here, here and here which I'm sure will be useful. I know the person who runs the restoration group (in fact, I bought my house from him), if it turns out to be of any use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gosh. I went to see the old ferry terminals at Aust and Beachley about five years ago - standing next to the pub at the latter hearing the expansion joints over the Severn Bridge above is incredible. I was vaguely aware of the restoration job, which is why I wanted to spruce up the article a bit. I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333 11:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 January 2015
- From the editor: Introducing your new editors-in-chief
- Anniversary: A decade of the Signpost
- News and notes: Annual report released; Wikimania; steward elections
- In the media: Johann Hari; bandishes and delicate flowers
- Featured content: Yachts, marmots, boat races, and a rocket engineer who attempted to birth a goddess
- Arbitration report: As one door closes, a (Gamer)Gate opens
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Casual (subculture)
Hi, Thank you for the message and my apologies for the 'citation needed' error. I'm quite new to wikipedia and yet to fully find my way around. Unfortunately there was no 'citation needed' template obviously available and i was unable to find its location so again my apologies for that.. Yes, i agree that the article needs tidying up. This is why there's a need for citations over the full article. For instance i feel to the casual reader this reads (actually states) that this trend evolved from something started in London when in actual fact the two referenced precursors state that it actually began in Liverpool and Manchester. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by leaving the implication that it may well of started in London along side Liverpool and Manchester with my add on about it starting elsewhere 'as well as in Liverpool' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- "...may well have....", you mean, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't mean 'i think'. I mean i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt over an unreferenced, therefore unsubstantiated claim that clearly miss-leads the casual reader. As we both agree, the whole article needs cleaning up. If you want a clear and honest picture and you want your claims to stay, then give them the citation the obviously need. Just as others have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- "...misleads..." The point I was making is simply that your suggested wording makes no logical sense. I agree that the whole article needs more and better sources, but I'm not planning to rewrite it myself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the article makes no sense now simply because of the unreferenced, unsubstantiated first paragraph that for some unknown reason you also choose to repeat at the end. These two unsubstantiated entries clearly miss-lead the casual reader as well as messing up the whole structure. It seems to me, (and correct me if i'm wrong)but there are two separate aspects to this. (The pre-designer aspect and the start of designer aspect if you like). Now the designer aspect starting in Liverpool is well documented, but the pre one it seems, is cited as starting in Liverpool, cited as starting in Manchester and claimed as starting in London by yourself. For the sake of harmony the whole section could be written up as the three cities contesting the precursor to what Liverpool fans turned into continental label culture. The only thing with writing it up that way would be the Liverpool and Manchester claim being referenced and thr London claim remaining unsubstantiated. For the sake of accuracy ,you need a citation really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 09:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in pursuing this. I'm not particularly interested in the subject matter, and I don't have any sources about it. Other people will, in due course, and they should rewrite the whole article based on what those reliable sources say, not on what you, I, or anyone else believe to be true. The tag at the top of the article makes clear that the whole article needs to be rewritten. The only reason I became involved was to point out that the wording you prefer makes no logical sense, and to add that you are not that great at spelling - which is a disadvantage when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. Please also try to learn to sign your posts by using four of these symbols: ~ ... at the end. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
My spelling is just fine, may friend. Especially when i'm writing an article for public consumption and not merely scribbling it down whilst attempting to tactfully make a valid point with you. There are references out there to back-up your claims if what you say is true. For instance, i could make Nicky Allt's assertion equally grandiose and back it all up with at least another five reliable sources in thirty minutes flat. So i'll take your lack of sources and now seemingly lack of interest as a sign that you wouldn't mind me scrapping the first and last unsubstantiated paragraphs, then....Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you are prepared to rewrite the article based on what reliable sources say, that's excellent news. If you simply scrap the existing text and rewrite it based on what you personally believe, your edits will be reverted, by myself or other editors. That's the way the system works here, and my advice would be that you read some of the guidance on how editing here should be done before you launch yourself into work which may be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well as far as citing information with a reliable source is concerned, I know exactly how it works. That's the precise reason why I've asked you to cite yours whilst safe in the knowledge all mine are reliably referenced. The fact is you can't, can you? Now bearing all this in mind, your failure to do so would obviously suggest if anyone is writing "what you personally believe", then it would clearly be you....Therefore by extension, myself and others would be well within their rights to scrap what you say (twice), then leave it as it reads until someone sees fit to re-write it with more appropriate citations to add to the citations already given. Personally i would never leave anything on a page that i was unable to reference if someone clearly requested i do so, but then that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you'll find that I haven't contributed any wording to that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but I bet you've thought about it, haven't you! And Misplaced Pages now requires appropriate citations for article-related thoughts! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So why bother arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info? You argue against your own point when you state 'you and others have the right to revert something that isn't clearly substantiated with an appropriate reference'. You're basically arguing with someone who has clearly referenced all of his contributions about your right to revert appropriately referenced contributions, on behalf of someone who hasn't even referenced his own...Richie bedfellows (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
They made sense right from the start. As i say, the confusion stems from the contribution written by whoever it is you fail to address about the need for an appropriate citation whilst arguing your right to revert such contributions with me. I'm glad you now find the wording acceptable. Perhaps you would be good enough to pass on your revised thoughts to the other username, or the one you have just left me a message on behalf of, under your 'Ghmyrtle' unsername... to be more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)