User talk:Kierant/Archive2

Holy Opel Speedster Batman

Reverted the reversion and edited. The car in the picture _IS_ a LHD Opel Speedster. Fact. As for 'original research' the 'perhaps' speculation is just that. The reasons the owner of the vehicle had for rebranding it are his own - we'll never know. We'll never be able to reference that, we're not writing an academic paper here!

The existing image was a joke - the comment stated the car was a VX220, which it isn't, it's an Opel Speedster with a Vauxhall badge. I've owned a VX220 for a while now and know my stuff :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmac (talk • contribs) 01:05, 6 January 2007

I'm sure you "know your stuff" about the Opel, but you were in breach of Wikipedia's guidelines on original research, as you clearly realise since your own new edit has removed the speculation. We just can't say "Fact." if we can't prove the fact. The rule is verifiability, not truth. I know that sounds perverse at first thought, but it's how it works, and the alternative would be constant battles between people who think they know best. Also, the onus is on the provider of the information to verify it. One needs to understand that this is an encyclopædia, and not an Opel fan site. Aaaaanyway, I've replaced the image altogether with an unambiguous one of a definite Opel, hope you like it :) – Kieran T ^(talk) 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome ISSN in University of Sussex

Hello Kieran. Recently I went ahead and replaced the difficult ISSN on the University of Sussex page [1]. Please see my rationale on the article's Talk page. It helps WP if we can gradually eliminate the invalid identifiers that turn up in maintenance runs. The current undergraduate prospectus seems to be online at the University's web site, but I couldn't find a current ISSN there. Perhaps they eventually gave up on the bad ISSN (though I have no way of knowing). EdJohnston 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BAH

This project is now yours! Unisouth 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tunnocks Tea Cake

Great recommended articles on your user page Kierant. I fear I sound more grumpy than I actually am at Talk:Scotland and indeed regularly indulge in tea and cakes. Many of Astrotrain 's edits are helpful and I'd be more than happy to buy he/she/it a macaroon bar should our paths cross (what is an Astrotrain anyway?). However I was trying to be honest about my frustration and use mock-grumpy than maintain some sort of 'after-you-Claud' sham-politeness. Perhaps inadvisable, and thanks for your comments. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I see what you mean about sham-politeness, and heartily respect your honesty. The thing was, as somebody who didn't know you, I'd read your original comments as an attack on Astrotrain, rather than his edits, and I've seen a lot of that lately. He's not afraid of edit-warring, but I think his contributions are often good, and I don't like to see somebody become the whipping-boy. (I'm thinking particularly of the Royal Bank of Scotland article, where a user called Calgacus won't leave him alone.) Anyway, thanks again for getting in touch, and I'll bear what you've said in mind in future. :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification

Hi Kierant, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|Kierant]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086^{Talk | Contribs} 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Trucks

Thank you for supporting the proposal of a project about trucks! I've written some kind of temporary project page User:Rotten Stone/WikiProject Trucks. I feel a bit insecure about phrasing and spelling, especially Goals and Scope, could you please help? Of course any other help or input would be greatly appreciated as well. Rotten Stone 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Opel Senator Editing

I would like to know what did "(tweaks inc Wolkswagen -> Volkswagen and rm near-empty infoboxes to allow thumbnails to respect user prefs as per MoS (and for overall layout)" meant, I would like to know what mistake I made.Gumbos 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, I changed your "Wolkswagen" to "Volkswagen" because that's how it is spelt in English, but please don't worry about the rest — you didn't make a mistake, I was just tweaking other parts of the article. Specifically, there's a guideline in the manual of style that says we shouldn't specify the size of a thumbnail unless there's a "compelling reason" to do so. This is partly so that people can set a default thumbnail size in their own user preferences, and thumbnails they see will automatically take on that size. The change affected the Monza image. Then I thought the second and third infoboxes might as well be just thumbnails too, since they contained only the production dates, which were duplicated in the main infobox anyway (albeit in one lump rather than "A" and "B" generations.) I think the article is better-looking and more standard (so easier to understand) now. – Kieran T ^(talk) 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks, also, how do I put a link on the article showing the link to the commercial, so people can see the car on the commercial...Gumbos 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a template for adding video to an article here, but it's intended for videos which you have uploaded to Wikimedia, and to do that, they must not be copyright, and I suspect the advert will be. If it is copyright, but is available elsewhere on the internet (legally) you can add it as an external link. The format is [http://web.site/ Description] — note that there's just one set of square brackets, unlike an internal link which has a double set. Finally, if it is copyright, and not online (for example, it's on your hard disc) then sadly you can't upload it, because that would be a breach of copyright. – Kieran T ^(talk) 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote:"Hiya, I changed your "Wolkswagen" to "Volkswagen" because that's how it is spelt in English"

Actually, that's how it's spelled all over the world, it's the actual German name :-) Sometimes in short form VW.

V is pronounced like F, and W like V. You say the name like "Folksva:gen" where the O is same sound as in "follow" and A same as in "art". VW is said "Fau Ve:"

In Danish the name (meaning car/wagon of the people) would usually be translated when speaking of the car, and would be a Folkevogn. G®iffen 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all that. :)

By the way, I decided not to just say, "...because that's how it's spelt." because it sounded a bit sarcastic to me, and I was trying to be genuine! It's an interesting aside though: how many companies change their name to suit foreign languages? A fair few Japanese ones have done, but do European ones? Hmm... – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure that VW did change the name, I think the population did, just to be specific. Sorry for being unclear. It would still say "Volkswagen" at the "name tag" on the car. It's just easier for danes to say the danish word, which is so close to the german. G®iffen 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Galashiels

I notice that you have added back citation tags to the Galashiels article after I removed them, the tags were added by a user in order to push their POV on the article and in order to have the Gaelic names removes from several articles, this is simply another step in their campaign. The user concerned has taken to using sockpuppets to further their POV, as is the case here. Fraslet 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I certainly don't want to encourage a disruptive anonymous editor in an axe-grinding campaign. Nevertheless, as somebody with no interest in his or her campaign, I actually agree with the sentiment on this particular edit. I don't think it's valid to add Gaelic names for places which don't naturally have them, either in historic, or current social use of the language. That would be the province of the Gaelic edition of Wikipedia, not this English edition. I am in no way suggesting that Gala fits that description — I don't know if it does or doesn't — but that's the whole point of asking for a reference, isn't it? I think it would be within the spirit (and rules, I dare say) of Wikipedia to provide a reference showing that the name is really used, and not just a transliteration. Obviously, "common sense" sometimes is what's called for, when there is no readily available reference, but on that note I'd add that I have a relative in Gala and have been a visitor to the town on many occasions, and can't recall ever seeing the Gaelic name on any signs, or hearing it used (for what little that's worth).

In short, I'm more than happy to see these names if they're genuine, but find them to be a political campaign in and of themselves if they're made up by Gaelic speakers purely for these articles. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Chiswick warning notice

Hi, Kierant. I am puzzled by the warning notice (for lack of references) you inserted in the notable people section of Chiswick. What exactly do you expect to see here? Are you saying that the fact of local residence should be referenced, or are you asking about the notability of the people? If the second, the references should be in the individuals’ articles. If the first, some have suitable references within their own articles – for example, the article on Anthony Burgess, the first name on the list, includes a note of his Chiswick residence. But I am sure this is not the case with all the names, and I am concerned about the amount of work needed if this point is to become general within all the similar sections in all the local area articles. Do you intend to insert your notice in each and every such article? None I have looked at so far have this particular type of reference – nor has anyone else inserted a warning notice for that reason. Yes, I know that a high standard of scholarship is required, but this must vary according to the importance of the fact in question; and the residence of all those notable folk is not of major importance. Don’t you think you have gone a bit over the top in this? I would like to see the notice removed, please. Patche99z 11:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This list of notables is particularly long, and provides no background information at all, being just a list. These are prone to unsubstantiated edits. It is of course preposterous to expect every sentence in an article to carry a reference, but a list like this needs backup — in every article in which it appears. That's a fundamental part of Wikipedia (please refer to WP:ATT). It's not always necessary to insert a warning/contribution request tag if the list isn't getting out of hand or the information is known by common sense; but they tend to start to be somewhat regulated when they get long, as this one now hopefully has. Please compare with the discussion at Talk:Bow, London about the same issue. A good deal of excellent work has gone in to sourcing the data in that article for another area of the same city. – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The Bow reference is interesting, both for the approach to the list and for the passions aroused! I think that the main points to consider for Chiswick are:

1. Each name on the list should have a line to itself, with a brief note of the reason for its inclusion. This allows you or someone else to add to each line a separate request for citation if needed, rather than a single whallop of a warning; it allows vandalism to be more easily spotted; and it is much easier to read and comprehend. This has been mentioned in the Chiswick discussion already, but the Bow discussion makes it all the more necessary. It will also help if the list is alphabetical.
2. I suggest that two subheadings are used within the list. The first, "English Heritage Blue Plaques" will list the 5 or 6 names found and noted in the discussion. A single reference to the relevant EH web site [2] will suffice. The second, "Other notable people" or some such, will be listed as per Bow and Wimbledon. If the article regarding the individual includes a citation to Chiswick, no further citation need be given. Otherwise, give one, or leave the name out.

What do you think? Patche99z 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds excellent :-)

The one thing I'd emphasise is that if we're relying on a person's own article to provide the evidence required, we should make sure that the person's article actually carries a reference, not just a "mention" of the area — because of course WP articles can't be references for each other. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hi Kierant, I have made some proposals for amendments to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. They do not have anything to do with interpreting the meaning of "a strong tie to a particular region or dialect", which I plan to return to at another time, but focus instead on other issues. Comment is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, particularly from people such as yourself who are sympathetic to the spirit of the guidelines to begin with. Joeldl 13:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your post on my page

1. You'd be well advised not to warn an administrator about vandalism
2. Discuss any problems on the talk page please, I already posted a thread at talk:Danny_Wallace_(comedian)#Page_name.
3. I rolled back your changes because they were copy and paste moves without indication of source, which is a violation of the GFDL. If you want a page moved, use the move button. If the software won't allow it, you have to ask at WP:RM. --kingboyk 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, I did discuss the matter on the talk page, and you deleted it. Calling up an admin on the fact that they're not doing things which reflect consensus is hardly a personal attack. I also think you should consider that "You'd be well advised not to warn an administrator about vandalism" sounds like a threat of some sort. Presumably it'd be a personal attack if I suggested you were abusing your power. So instead of that I'll read up on who on earth has power to have a word with you which you'll actually listen to. Incidentally, regarding the move versus copy and paste - my apologies for that, point taken - it was all moving around (and being reverted) rather quickly and I realised that some of the history of the page got lost (i.e. moved) with the first move, which was confusing. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd be well advised not to warn any established contributor of vandalism. It's an attack, and people have got into trouble for it. It's not a threat as I wouldn't take any action personally against an editor who is in dispute with me.

This is all extremely silly. I rolled back your move because it was illegal under the GFDL! If you want to move the page, fine, hit the move button. If that doesn't work, try WP:RM. This is a waste of my time even discussing it; I've said why I moved the page, I've invited further discussion, there's nothing more for me to do and you're making a big fuss about nothing. I'm quite happy for it to be moved back if consensus wants it (that's more than one editor, of course), but you have to do it without breaching copyright please! --kingboyk 11:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (I got an edit conflict, so I'm replying to a previos version of your comment here. Summary, I don't much care what it's called, but there are ways and means of overturning my move (discussion first, reverting the move, or requesting at WP:RM), and you didn't use them)

I can't find the comment of yours which I accidentally deleted. I'm sure you're right, but I can't find it. Please either show me the diff or restore it yourself. (Not the rant at me, nor the vandal accusation on my user talk, thanks, just any comment that got caught in a rollback; hopefully you now see that the messages I deliberately removed were inflammatory and inappropriate). --kingboyk 11:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for my part in this becoming inflamed. I would ask that you take a step back, though, and consider the high standard of work and communication which can be expected from an admin. My view was the following:

1. Several pages which happen to be on my watchlist drew my attention by receiving a surprising number of warning templates; one of them was moved without any apparent discussion, and some major changes were made
2. The edit summaries appeared sarcastic (e.g. "(it was a comedy show folks, he's not really a king)" - when references show that to approaching 50,000 people, the whole point is that he is.)
3. My attempt to intervene (admittedly by rolling back, which was a mistake, on reflection) were rapidly reverted without discussion from you either
4. Today, I made a mistake in the re-naming process, (by copying and pasting) but also tried to discuss the matter on the talk page. And on yours. These comments were - inadvertently in the first case - zapped. I'd point out that the rapid reverts without talk did look vandalistic to me. I had no idea you were an admin, and could only go based on what I'd seen - i.e. the lack of use of talk pages before a page move.
5. During the discussion which then began, you accused me of "mock indignation" - surely that's a personal attack. I was, in fact, genuinely indignant, having seen my comment zapped, and having no way of knowing that it had been accidental.

Aaaanyway, this really isn't something I want to pick a fight about. Mistakes were made. The relevant points are now up for discussion on the article talk page. I will leave it to other editors to deal with, since I'm now somewhat intimidated - this isn't an attack on you, but it's a fact. Let's take a leaf out of Mr Wallace's book and have a "Good Friday". – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AH, thanks for your final edit - I was writing mine (immediately above here) while it was made - it seems we're both keen to move on, so let's just do so. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the breakdown in communication was caused by us both editing at the same time and not waiting to see each other's answer :) Humble apologies for my part in that. I also boo-booed by accidentally hitting enter before I'd finished writing my edit summary when I rolled back your first edit, so it only said "rv" when it should have said "rv copy and paste move".

With regards to the other points, my understanding is that the How To Be A Country programme was a comedy documentary, and there are many hits for Danny Wallace comedian on Google. If that's correct, we should per WP:NPOV report it as such. He's not really a king is he? Surely theindependent sources (WP:RS) don't claim he truly is a monarch? Perhaps I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but I've been engaging in a serious review of the micronation articles, many of which are written "in universe" and which give undue weight to crackpot theories without regard to what the sources say, and I've been meeting some resistance from a dedicated micronation enthusiast along the way. It's all become a bit tiresome and I think you can understand why I might get a bit sarcastic after dredging through this lot :)

For the record, Danny Wallace's work does seem to be very interesting and thought provoking, to the extent that I might check out the DVD when it's released. If you want to work with me to ensure we have encyclopedic articles on these subjects, I'd be more than happy to help out. I haven't challenged their existence on Wikipedia (or I would have nominated them for deletion), but I think the maintenance tags are appropriate. Let's get the articles cleaned up so the maintenance tags aren't needed.

Thanks for the dialogue, it's clear you're a well meaning editor but we unfortunately both got a bit carried away. It happens, that's wiki, there's a storm in a teacup every 5 minutes here. The important thing is the end result. --kingboyk 12:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, it's great when it's possible to change a storm in a teacup into a nice cup of tea :)

I'm definitely keen to help cleanup the cruft in these articles. I had some resistance to keeping Lovely (micronation) at least vaguely encyclopædic — especially at issue was keeping out the detailed results of "elections" which appear to take place on an internet forum which definitely doesn't reflect the opinions or beliefs of a large number of the original "citizens".

I definitely think there is something genuinely noteworthy about the project. Given that the TV series included interviews with the likes of Noam Chomsky, for example, who seemed prepared to give it genuine consideration. And there was the dedication shown by some of those who took it on as a fun – but also serious/sincere – attempt at gaining recognition for a new country.

As for "is he a King"... it's something which I agree should be somehow raised as a question in the article, but not written off, because there are (were? — I must check) sources from organisations like the BBC (on the TV programme's website) which say he is, and obviously it's not for me to say whether they were being flippant when they wrote so. The country isn't recognised by the United Nations, and articles such as Kosovo go into enormous debate about why that matters, but "kingship" is something more subtle, it seems.

So, which maintenance tag should be the first target? ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source, but in this case a primary source I would have thought? It all depends on the context (BBC News serious article? BBC News joke article? BBC TV listing? all quite different).

As for maintenance targets, citations of reliable sources is always the most important thing, and other improvements usually follow from there (if you're writing an article directly from the independent reliable sources you're generally going to get an encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view too). Hell, why not take one of the articles to FAC? It's very satisfying to get the FA star (if you don't know already). --kingboyk 12:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Danny Wallace (footballer)

Please see Talk:Danny_Wallace_(footballer)#Move, your input would be welcome there. --kingboyk 12:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)