User talk:Interplanet Janet

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lysytalk 09:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Renaming Beth Tweddle Page
The page was changed to Elizabeth Tweddle as that is her full name. An encyclopaedia would include the full name and not an abreviation. Also you mention that you should "use common names" that is not the case. Princess Anne is always called that and hardly ever Anne, Princess Royal like her page entitles. Also Beyoncé. Although she is known as Beyonce Knowles she is widely known as just Beyonce. Exactly same as Beth. She is always called Elizabeth in competitions and some press. P e  ter  will  16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Northampton
Hi ! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many  issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you  can, and leave any  comments there. (This is a generic message. if it  has been placed on your talk  page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Move
Hello You wrote that the two should clearly match one another and they did until you moved the page back. I assume that you'll watch that discussion and move the one page if necessary? Please respond on my talk at your convenience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Ukraine
'"the Ukraine" is generally considered obsolete.'

Well, that's completely untrue. I don't know who considers it "obsolete", but I still hear it all the time, and it's what I'd use myself.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael White (producer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael White (producer) 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/Michael White (producer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tony Grisoni


The article Tony Grisoni has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. West Eddy (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Uruguayan Clásico
Hi there - you removed the PROD from this article citing the es.wikipedia article. Fancy translating sources/information to bring the English version up to standard? Regards, GiantSnowman 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

CME Zion Church
I'd say you're right in deleting the CME Zion page. As you said, it's gone nowhere and the info is in the referring pages. Yahnatan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Doubles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pat Hughes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Hello, I'm Mdann52. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Mdann52 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Mdann52 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Tour of Britain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlisle, Knowsley and Dartmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Clayton, South Yorkshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Plague


 * Zeb Soanes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Newsreader

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Bourne End, Cranfield
I thought it was standard practice to start a discussion on such mergers for completing them? Bleaney (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Vaccines
The album's title is similar to that of the first album, 'What did you expect from the Vaccines?'. 'Come of Age' is just the short, just as 'What did you expect...?' was for the first album, also it looks a bit silly to title an article 'The Vaccines Come of Age - The Vaccines' or similar. I know its strange. NME list the full title both here, http://www.nme.com/news/this-weeks-releases/65828 and here, http://www.nme.com/news/this-weeks-releases/65828 and on Tuesday last week, I was at an album signing at HMV in manchester where the band did a few interviews with some small time local journalists and they were definitely saying they thought "it would be nice to keep the whole band name in the album title". I know I can't prove that but, I'll have a look about to see if any of the interviews are online anywhere. thanks.

EDIT: here's a couple more reviews using the full title:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2012/09/the-vaccines-the-vaccines-come-of-age.html

http://www.the-fly.co.uk/reviews/album/1015267/the-vaccines/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts-ents/music/cd-review.18700745

http://consequenceofsound.net/2012/09/album-review-the-vaccines-the-vaccines-come-of-age/

Nbdelboy (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Donald L Lunsford listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald L Lunsford. Since you had some involvement with the Donald L Lunsford redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TJRC (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Theatre Is Evil
You can't add a contenious paragraph like that to an article without a single source. I'm yet to be convinced that it's a notable controversy - at best it probably warrants a sentence in the finished article - but either way you need to find the source first, then add the content. Nothing is so important that it needs to be rushed into Wikipedia without decent sourcing and due consideration of weight. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 09:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop. Do it properly or not at all. Take a few minutes and actually write the sources up into an acceptable state. Don't just say "the sources are there, happy editing". Put the work in. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 09:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * BE PATIENT. I was using the Reflinks tool to save me some typing. You can't easily use this tool without adding the bare citation to the article first.  Note that what you ASSUMED was just a blog entry, was actually published in the print edition, as well.  Please WP:AGF in the future.  Give editors at least 24 hours to respond to a need for citations.  Template:Under Construction suggests several days.


 * You don't understand the relevant guidelines here, how they have changed over time, and you don't even do us the courtesy of linking to them. Lentower (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the Wikipedia Foundation has been encouraging us experienced editors to go gently on the new editors. New editors are being driven away, by the excessive behaviour of experienced editors.

This article has new editors working on it. The gentle nudge of [citation needed] is a better and more appropriate way to encourage them to stay, and within a short time give us a better encyclopedic result, than the harsher, less instructive, and inconsiderate of new editors approach, you applied several times. It will also encourage them to stay and help us improve the encyclopedia quicker. Lentower (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles are noteable, not content
Here on Wikipedia, articles are notebale (or not), and content is encyclopedic (or not). In the "Theatre is Evil" section above you refer to "notable controversy" about content. The distinction is an important, as the policies and guidelines are different. Learning and using the Wikipeidian dialect of English helps everyone here. Lentower (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points
A couple of points:
 * Notable, encyclopedic... what's the difference? This is a semantic argument. "You know what I call semantics? Wank." Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 14:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a semantic argument. You haven't read the policies and guideline carefully in quite a few years.


 * The standards for the notability of articles are more stringent than the standards for content, than they were some years ago. Lentower (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I know the guidelines. I know that addition of unsourced material is not encouraged, and if the material is controversial, it should definitely be sourced. I also know that putting "under construction" at the top of a section means that it is short of facts, not that it is short of sourcing. If you're not prepared to add the sources, don't add the content yet. Wait a day or two until you have time to do it properly. The information isn't going anywhere. I came up with a general editing guideline a while back, which I've not written down anywhere before, but this seems a good time:
 * ''There are many things that can be done, but nothing that must be done, by you, right now.

Happy editing. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 14:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I didn't add any of this content (though I might have copy-edited it some). I put the citations on the talk page, so the content could be developed with references.  I planned on coming back later, and doing it in a more encyclopedic manner than it is now (if no one else had).


 * Second, granted it was added without citations, I and several other editors added the [citation needed]s. My intent was to teach new editors to add citations, of where to add citations, and respect their efforts.  Your blanket deletions made this much less obvious.


 * Third, you have yet to show any respect for me and the other editors under WP:AGF, etc. This respect includes the fact that our POV could be different than yours, while both have valid points.  That consensus should be developed not by an edit war, but by discussion on the talk page of the article.


 * Fourth, you behaviour here is exactly the kind that drives away new editors, and causes admins to go inactive. Note that when I became an active editor years ago, en.wikipedia.org had about 3.000 admins -- it's now less than half that.  Both are major long term problems here.  If you care about Wikipedia, you'll become aware of these two problems, and consider how to change your behaviour.


 * Fifth, you appear to know the guidelines as they were some years ago, but not significant changes since then.


 * Sixth, your general editing guideline applies to you as much as it does to any other editor. It's equivalent to my "Be Patient" above.


 * So I don't agree with your general editing guideline, or your editing on this article. Practice here on en.wikipedia.org, as evidenced by the changes in the policies and guidelines, and editing on other articles doesn't agree with you either. best Lentower (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines

 * I'm watching this page, and will check any changes on the sections I've edited, and any new sections you add. (I use pop-ups on "My Watchlist", so it's fast and easy to do the checking.) It's best for other editors, if a discussion is all on one page.  (This discussion didn't seem to merit being on the article's Talk page.) Lentower (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember the old wild west days when we just threw everything in and only worried about citations when challenged. This is not the olden days. One guideline that I am aware of - and one that has changed in the eight years I've been editing Wikipedia - states: "Contentious material about living persons (or 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." (from WP:RS)Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're referring to WP:BLP. To me, the controversy in this article isn't of that kind.   But if your Edit Summary had been something like:
 * Has to be removed per WP:BLP, add citations per WP:RS
 * I would have respected it, and added the NY Times citation before reverting. Such an edit summary, would also help new editors understand what they have to do.  What you did left them in the dark, and feeling like their good faith edits are not welcome.


 * We are also partially back to the old days you refer to. In most cases, the guidelines again allow content to be added without citations.  In those cases, citations are only needed, if challenged.  A reasonable time period is allowed before deletion. Lentower (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So please don't accuse me of not knowing the guidelines. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (Are you taking this personally? Your tone here makes me wonder.)


 * I didn't accuse you of anything. I said, and still say, you hadn't kept up to date on some of the guidelines.  I did not say you were out of date on all the guidelines.


 * Hopefully we can both get back to improving articles now. Lentower (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gaggle (band) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaggle (band) 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/Gaggle (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You commented at:
Talk:Tor (disambiguation). Please see Talk:Tor In ictu oculi (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)