Talk:Greaves' Rules

Cleanup tag
I am the author of this page and a bot doesn't like it. Why?
 * What bot are you talking about? I tagged it for cleanup, and I'm not a bot.  No one else has edited it.  It does need cleanup, but I did some quick research and believe it is likely notable enough for an article.

Cleanup just means putting it in a format more similar to other Wikipedia articles, nothing to be concerned about. Tagging it also tells other editors (who might be more trigger happy) that an editor has looked at it and thinks it is ok, except for cleanup. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the maintenance tag was not placed by a bot, but by another editor while patrolling new pages. The article currently has noncompliance issues that need to be addressed. Specifically, compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The article also needs editing. Statements are made that are not supported by sources. These need citations. There are also sources provided, which are not reliable and fail verification guidelines. Also, please make sure to sign your comments with four tildes ~ so we can easily identify with whom we are speaking. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions or need assistance. Thanks,  Cind. amuse  18:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's nice to know a human put the notice here. Personally, I can find nothing wrong with the article which is both internally and externally referenced. If you have a style issue, why not try to modify the article yourself, rather than getting other people to guess what you mean. I make a point of mending about a dozen articles a day - one's where editors like you are able to place notices like the one you have put, but seem unable to mend what they perceive to be a broken article. I think I know which is the more useful approach.

If you need more references, why not find some for yourself?

Does your judgement matter as what is worthy of being an article or not?

What are the special powers you have that cause you to be an editor? Are you capable of vanishing into thin air, perform a cross-country marathon while doing the splits or what?

We are all editors if we modify the 'Pedia.

The are a lot of rather stuck up people in the 'Pedia, busybodies who say"I don't like this and it's wrong", rather than settling down to the hard work of correcting.

Charles Norrie


 * Comment Rather than assume the worst, you might consider that I thought it was notable, so I tagged it with "something" to show an editor had already reviewed it, and was waiting until the original creator was finished adding content actively. Because many would look at the topic as borderline, it actually made it less likely to get tagged for deletion that way.  You might want to read up on Assume good faith.  You could have also seen that I have over 10k edits, been here for many, many years, and clean up a lot of articles.  And tagging an article (or doing any edit) makes it automatically in my 'watched' list.  I'm also not an expert on drinking rules, btw.  You are biting the hand was trying to help in this instance. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a very strange way of showing your appreciation. You might learn from my article that Greaves' Runes are about mutual trust. When I wrote my article, I put my best effort into it. You might have realised that much as in the way the rules were written (for a vanity piece in a newspaper) that the intention was slightly comic. I know you are not an expert of drinking rules (btw) or not. So why do you offer the 'Pedia community an offer that they rewrite the rules, when in fact you are incapable of contributing to the article yourself. You have got yourself appointed to some petty editorship, and begin to throw your weight around. I cannot think of any way you have helped except to your oversensitive vanity. It is people like you who make the 'Pedia a bore, but since there is only one, I have to put up with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.159.136 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a few things you need to keep in mind here.
 * 1) Cool it with the personal attacks. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors.
 * 2) Take responsibility for your edits that are not in compliance with Wikipedia's quality standards. No one is responsible for following you around on Wikipedia and cleaning up your edits. This task falls on you. Please read and review the Manual of Style to learn more about appropriately contributing to this encyclopedia.
 * 3) Remember to log in to your account before editing, and always sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes ~ .  If you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia, I strongly advise you to review the Manual of Style, along with the policies and guidelines linked on Wikipedia's welcome page. Best regards,  Cind.  amuse  05:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks. If you choose to regard them as such that's your affair. I have taken full responsibility for my stuff, which is accurate, logical and in good English and contains not a single grammatical or spelling solecism. You must tell me in what way my stuff is not in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and I cannot work out what bugs you. I cannot read your mind. If you tell me, then we can address the issues. I do not always log in to my account and usually only when I want to create an article and have to. I wish you well in your next career as an ex-Wikipedia editor. You must learn to be more helpful rather than issuing diktats. The author of the rules himself, liked my pieceand thanked me for it. He is a senior journalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.159.136 (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This matter has been hanging around for some time. Aprt from the editor who claerly doesn't like it and the contributor, no one has complianed. The editor thinks it is worth keeping, and asks the community to improve it. The community resoluetly has not done so, and so the notice should be removed.Tarannon103 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Article has been reviewed and cleaned. Nonetheless, I must draw the article creator's attention to WP:V, WP:N, REF, WP:NOT and, importantly, WP:BURDEN. Also, regarding comments made above, I suggest Tarannon103 reads WP:COI. LordVetinari (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

PROD
I noticed that LordVetinari trimmed much of the content and almost all the sources, then PROD'ed the page. Many of the sources were fluff, granted, but I think that if you are going to carve up an article just to delete it, you should go to AFD and let a broader group of editors look at it. I assume good faith, but I don't think it was good form. From what I can tell, it is barely notable. It would probably be good to have someone look through the history and see if some of the trimmed sources are salvageable, just to have a second opinion. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for assuming good faith. I agree that, in hindsight, it does look like bad form. Regarding my actions, I tidied the article first, removing what seemed to be unreliable or unsupporting sources, then left it for a few days. I looked for further information about "Greaves Rules" but didn't find anything better than the previous sources (which I also double-checked). When I came back to the article and found no one had done any further work on it (not even the author, who seems so enthusiastic about this article), I decided the article should be prodded. I disagree that the article should have gone to AfD. A PROD is intended to "prod" a reaction from editors with an interest in improving article. An AfD would merely delete or keep the article with little likelihood that, if kept, the article would be improved by those demanding Keep. At least, by PRODding, there's a good chance the article could be rescued. LordVetinari (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And I'm glad you took my comments in the proper vane. It does need some serious work, and I did a little more cleaning up, and I agree with the concerns, but I patrolled it originally and found enough info that I felt it would survive an AFD, if barely.  I don't think it will ever be on the front page of Wikipedia, but it *seems* to pass GNG, even if barely. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll keep an eye on it for a while but not tonight. I'm still finishing up a large update at Government of New South Wales and then its bed for me. Almost midnight here. Anyway, thank you for patrolling (and looking after) the article. Would it be too cheeky to mention that the PROD seems to have served it's purpose after all? :-) LordVetinari (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, that is part of what they are for, a knock to see if anyone is home and cares. I would agree that if a very weak article is prod'ed, and no one notices, we probably didn't need the article in the current state. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The citation nedded notice I removed has been reverted. Why? If you read Greaves' Rules in the versions Greaves supplied that I refer to he staes the sorts of situations in which they can be broken. So there is no need to make any other reference. Don't you understand logic, for simple logic is all you have been ask to apply. So RFereverted. Stop bugging me.

Charles Norrie under his own name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.87.239 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to actually read the guidelines here on Wikipedia, in particular, the policy on being WP:CIVIL. You can disagree with someone without being disagreeable.  You also need to read the policies on reliable sources and the manual of style.  You might also try getting an account with your name if you want to use your name (not required in any way, but a good idea).  You should sign each post with four tilde marks, ie: ~, which will automatically insert your name and date (or IP and date).  This is not really optional, and forces the bots to do it for you if you don't.  Being ignorant of the guidelines makes for weak arguments, as does being rude, so please don't be surprised if others simply ignore your comments until you take those steps.  We are all equals here.  Choosing to be ignorant and rude doesn't make you "more equal" than others.   Dennis Brown (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

LordVetinari's "merge"
LordVetinari, just copying and pasting the article without attribution isn't exactly a merge, and a bit strong of a move considering it wasn't discussed on the talk page first. Reverted back. Dennis Brown (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)