Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bellowhead678: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:16, 16 January 2016 editMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,056 edits →The Signpost: 13 January 2016: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 22:57, 20 January 2016 edit undoBonewah (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,108 edits →can you help with art laffer?: new sectionNext edit →
Line 121: Line 121:
</div></div> </div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=700081781 --> <!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=700081781 -->

== can you help with ]? ==

I wanted to say thanks for edit on ]. I think you were right that there is a consensus against including the material you removed. Unfortunately, when I tried to remove the exact same material from the ] page, Volunteer Marek/lipsquid me, declaring that i would need to create a new RfC and that the old one wasnt resolved. This is despite the fact that the edits in question were literally identical and i specifically mentioned both in the RfC and on the Art Laffer page my intention to change both. I cant help but notice that neither of them challenged you when you made the change to Jude Wanniski, which leads me to believe that they (assuming they are even different people) have some kind of grudge against me specifically, although i couldnt for the life of me tell you why. Because of this i was hoping that you would remove the same material from Art Laffer that you did from Jude Wanniski, assuming, of course, that you agree that it should be removed. Thanks in advance, and feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or concerns. ] (]) 22:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:57, 20 January 2016

Re: New Tube for London

Hello, Bellowhead678. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alarics (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Conservative Party Position Reference

Thanks for adding the reference. I asked for one because it seemed a bit inconsistent for many political parties (especially American ones) to have "position" parameters removed for lack of citation while a governing party of a major nation like the Conservatives had unsourced, uncited claims, no matter how obvious the information is.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve People's Quantitative Easing

Hi, I'm Musa Raza. Absolutelypuremilk, thanks for creating People's Quantitative Easing!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This page doesn't belong to any categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Musa Talk  09:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Tim Farron

Hi, regarding your edit summary, can I point you to WP:BLP and in particular this clause of the policy Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. It was based on this policy that I judged it was not appropriate to tag a serious POV issue with {{cn}} and move on; removal is the preferred option. Don't get me wrong, your rewrite is good and the remaining uncited element is not contentious. I just wanted to draw your attention to the policy in this area in case you weren't familiar with it should something like this come up again. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Council Tax/Bailiff Guardian Article

Dear Absolutelypuremilk,

I made the edit to the Council Tax Page because there was no information about Council Tax Enforcement on the page. The news article caused a big conversation amongst many stakeholders in Council Tax Enforcement but Council Tax Enforcement does not have it's own Wiki page.

Council Tax Managers at various local authorities, CIVEA - professional standards body for bailiffs, Local Government Ombudsman, Met Police, IPCC, CPS, Guardian Money, This Is Money were involved in discussions since the article.86.7.125.24 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, I realise you were trying to be constructive but that is not the place for it. I would suggest you start a new section in the Council Tax article called "Council Tax Enforcement" and you can source content using that link and others that you can find. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Rail transport in Great Britain. Since anyone can edit Misplaced Pages, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


Teahouse logo Hello! Absolutelypuremilk, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Privatisation of British Rail

Since you appear to be the only other person interested in this article, I thought I would let you know I've just made a few more changes, and would be interested in hearing your opinion (even if it's just a 'no problem'). Basically, I've reduced the 'System' related text down to a single section, split out some material to a new Impact of the privatisation of British Rail, and refocused the Proposals section to be about political positions, which it largely was anyway. I think this now solves the size issue, and from a Table of Contents position the article looks much more accessible. I think it also better identifies current gaps in coverage (i.e., it wasn't immediately obvious before, despite the amount of text, that the info on political positions is patchy at best). Still lots to do, but it's still all only really putting lipstick on a pig until such time as someone wants to put some serious effort in. Such a shame that most rail people here seem to see this website as some kind of a hobby, rather than feeling any shame for foisting totally incoherent/unorganised rubbish on the unsuspecting public. Kristian Jenn (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

UK GDP growth forecast

I took a look at page 84 and noticed a whole host of other agencies with slightly varying figures for the GDP growth forecast. I'm wondering what, if any, thought went into choosing the Office for Budget Responsibility's estimate? According to the report the IMF recently forecast it at 2.5%, which was the previous source on the page. Jolly Ω Janner 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure, to be honest I just saw that the OBR had published the 2.4% figure and updated the page (from 2.3%) accordingly. If you think 2.5% is a better estimate then feel very free to change it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering there are seven different forecasters and none of which warrant their use any more than the last, I think an average of their figures might make sense here. A couple of them were published in October, but the rest in November, so all pretty recent. The mean average would be 2.5 anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think just putting 2.5% and the IMF as a reference is probably the best option then Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 Done also updated the source for Q3. Jolly Ω Janner 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes but its an increase as in positive growth, not as in higher growth than last year Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not how I took it and I wonder whether the average reader might make that mistake too. Is there a guideline to suggest doing it that way? Jolly Ω Janner 23:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen any guidelines on it, but this is the case on pretty much every article I have seen Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


I wonder why they are needed at all, since the growth itself tells you whether it's going up or down. With the other facts in the infobox such as GDP per capita, it is going up because it is now higher than the previous figure. This is helpful when the previous figure is not included. Jolly Ω Janner 23:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess that it is an easy way to see whether it is increasing for those short-sighted people who might not be able to tell if there is a minus sign? Possibly something you could take up with the powers that be Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll make a post on the talk page and see if anyone else is interested in the matter. Jolly Ω Janner 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Hi , The very same user who posted that there was a grammatical error says there are grammatical errors despite those errors having been fixed and without explaining why. Kind of outrageous isn't it? (N0n3up (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

This is probably best discussed on the article talk page Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Cost of moving in the United Kingdom

Hi. You have shown interest in previous UK housing topics and I would be interested in your views on this:

Cost of moving in the United Kingdom

I put a lot of work into this article which has been nominated for deletion and I'm not sure why. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cost of moving in the United Kingdom I think it should stay. Thanks. Tomintoul (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

can you help with art laffer?

I wanted to say thanks for this edit on Jude Wanniski. I think you were right that there is a consensus against including the material you removed. Unfortunately, when I tried to remove the exact same material from the Art Laffer page, Volunteer Marek/lipsquid reverted me, declaring that i would need to create a new RfC and that the old one wasnt resolved. This is despite the fact that the edits in question were literally identical and i specifically mentioned both in the RfC and on the Art Laffer page my intention to change both. I cant help but notice that neither of them challenged you when you made the change to Jude Wanniski, which leads me to believe that they (assuming they are even different people) have some kind of grudge against me specifically, although i couldnt for the life of me tell you why. Because of this i was hoping that you would remove the same material from Art Laffer that you did from Jude Wanniski, assuming, of course, that you agree that it should be removed. Thanks in advance, and feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or concerns. Bonewah (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)