User talk:BringItOn TheAteam

template "current" and changes to it
I predict that the future conversation at the talk page for current will not be unified on any proposal that comes forward, which is why I have not dealt with the contradictions between the name, the text that current displays when used, and the fact that it was intended for a narrow use. Despite a lot of editing of it over the last couple of years, it has not changed much since its first use. It is going to take me more than a little while to figure out what proposal will fly among those folks who care about this, and that is why I haven't done anything about this conundrum; I admit I don't expect to do anything about it soon. I'l tell you when something happens on this topic, and you can put your views forward then. cheers, Yellowdesk 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It IS a conundrum, I grant you that much. Nevermind. That's why I say it's tedious. Thanks pal.BringItOn TheAteam 14:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of date to trivia tag
Please explain to me your rationale of an additon of a date to the trivia tag on Bob Rogers (disc jockey) when a trivia section does not exist there any longer?BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot cannot distinguish the presence or absence of such sections, dating the tag means it should get dealt with at some point, even if merely to delete it. Rich Farmbrough, 09:19 26 June 2008 (GMT).

Well, I put it to you that your modus operandi is obviously faulty and questionable in cases like this and thus, I suspect, you are open to similar challenges on a regular basis. What you should have done, was to remove the tag entirely and not just add a date to it. Or alternatively, remove the tag. Is an advanced "bot" such as yours capable of doing that? Or is it too difficult to manage?BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GAFCON
Hello friend, I have put more detail on the GAFCON article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wilberforce
Sorry, your addition was rather poorly formatted, and as a result I misread the diff, and didn't notice that you'd added anything of substance - it looked liked you'd accidentally inserted a few line breaks into the article. When you're adding something to an existing article, it's helpful if you could follow the existing standards used for referencing and so on. I've reinstated the content, and tidied it up a bit. David Underdown (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just the formating of the reference, there were extra linebreaks in the text itself which made the diff harder to read than usual. I got it wrong, I should have read it more carefully, but it's sorted out now.  David Underdown (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See the talkpage where I posted about this more than a week ago asking for feedback; but in summary, the sentence is not fully verifiable from the source given, nor is the source a reliable one from WP perspectives. It is also not clear how notable this is in WW's life given than none of his bios mention it.  I don't doubt it's true and probably very interesting in a history of the diocese and religion in Australia etc, but we can't include all the interesting facts about WW's life in his WP bio. --Slp1 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not given those references in the article. .  Hicks does seem to have written some books, well done for finding them, though she is obviously not a historian by training. So, I might be convinced that we could consider her a reliable source except that she doesn't say what you had her say in your sentence.  But anyway, as I said I'm sure the substance of what you included is (mostly) verifiable somehow; after all I found three of my own references for it;  the main problem is how important/notable an event it was in WW's life and whether it really merits a special mention over and above the part about him being involved in missions generally.
 * WW didn't write an autobiography. The bios I am talking about are the recent biographies by Hague, Belmonte, Tomkins, and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry (see the article reference list for publisher etc) All very detailed, and none of them mentioning these people or this incident at all.  If you want to talk about this further I suggest we do it on the talkpage of the article.--Slp1 (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * About sources and what and what is not considered reliable, you might find it useful to refer to the content guidelines and policies such as WP:RS and WP:V. Rightly or wrongly, in this case WP would prefer citations from a book/journal article with more editorial oversight etc than a paper published on the Anglican diocese website.
 * "This is significant and absolutely related to the evangelical part of his life and has a present-day relevance up to this day." I don't doubt that it is true that sending these two people set the tone for the Anglican diocese for the future, but there is nothing in the citation you gave to support this claim. You might find this WP policy WP:NOR a useful read. But if you can find a reliable source for the claim, I think would be very suitable in the article on the diocese itself. But Wilberforce's actions had some influence on Christianity in many other countries. Do we need a sentence on each of them, when people who have written 400+ pages BOOKS on the subject don't find it important enough to mention?  But like I said, conversation about this would be better on the WW talkpage where other editors can participate.--Slp1 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry if I have discouraged you from editing; that was not my intention at all. I apologize if I wasn't clear. Nobody needs to be a historian or to be qualified to edit here; but we do need to careful to use reliable sources from people who are historians/scholars wherever possible.  I didn't mean to intend to suggest that you advocated adding sentences on Wilberforce's influence on Christianity in other countries.  You are interested in Anglicanism in Australia; but if we include Australia then we need to include all the other places in the world where he was involved, India, the West Indies,  Africa, Asia etc etc to maintain balance. One thing to know is that editors of featured articles often strive to maintain the articles to very high standards of content, sourcing etc:  the articles go through intense review and criticism of sourcing, prose, content, to even be promoted to FA, and once there and one FA status has been achieved one wants to keep the article to those high standards.  Anyway, I do apologize once again for discouraging you and hope that you will keep up the editing: it isn't always easy, I know but worth the learning curve, I think! --Slp1 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

VR-HEU
Thanks for the note, I did notice the difference in quoted numbers, you have referenced the crew/passenger list article at the moment which is probably OK for the moment but we probably need a more reliable source for the figures particularly as some of the summary accident sites have eighteen. Perhaps just add a footnote to the reference to say that some sources quote a different figure. Think we need to find an official source (like a government accident report) for the crew/passenger numbers. MilborneOne (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this article at the correct title? Shouldn't it be something like "Cathay Pacific Hainan Shoot-down, 1954" or similar? Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. A shorter alternative might be "1954 Hainan Shoot-down" or something similar. This would fit the format used in 2008 Farnborough plane crash and similar articles. Most people searching for this article would know the year/place/type of incident/airline but not the actual registration carried by the plane. The title just seems a bit obscure at the moment. I could have gone ahead and moved the article anyway but I wanted you to have an opportunity to comment/review and also to see what the consensus is. Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Presley Keough
If you want to have a say on if this article is deleted follow the link on the page. Vote delete or keep!JGG59 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You Are the Apple of My Eye
Hi BringItOn TheAteam,

Thanks for helping to improve the article You Are the Apple of My Eye. I am hoping to nominate this article for DYK nomination soon (like tomorrow or Saturday). It will be good if you can continue to help improve it. However, please try not to use emotionally-loaded words (like "smashing" records etc.) as this might cause the article's nomination to fail. Also please try to use the template when adding references. Thanks a lot for your help!--Lionratz (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if any part of my message offends you in any way. I am sincerely grateful for your help, since I could not have easily found those sources that you added in. Just that alone earns you my gratitude. As for the helping part, my belief is that when more than one editor is working together on the same page, the page will be improved significantly as compared to when one editor works on it. And I will not claim more credit than what it is worth. I do not want the tag of "editor", because this article is a product of many editors' hard work (like Cattus who created the page and the reviewers who reviewed the nomination and gave suggestions to improve). It would be shameless, and like what you said "self-absorbed" and "arrogant" to claim full credit. Lastly, I sincerely apologize if my above remarks are offending to you. Happy editing!--Lionratz (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Orchard Road (song) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orchard Road (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Orchard Road (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dr42 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)