User talk:Kearney Zzyzwicz

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Birmingham City F.C.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thought I should come and explain why I'd undone your stuff about the 85/86 season. Basically, it went into too much detail for one season. The history section on the main club article is supposed to be an overview, ideally summarising the main bits of the club's history without going into too much depth. If we have that much information for just that one season, it's unbalanced, and if we had that much for every season, the article would double in size, and it's already far too big...

It wouldn't be too much detail for the History of Birmingham City F.C. article, so long as the dramatic language was toned down a bit. I don't find it easy writing in a neutral manner, but we're supposed to, and whatever we add is should be verifiable from reliable published sources. Like if we say a "surprise" result, we need to reference a published source that verifies it was a surprise result. What you put was pretty accurate, except I don't remember it improving much under Bond, but it would have to be sourced. Or if you're particularly interested in that season, maybe consider starting a season article, Birmingham City F.C. season 1985–86? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. What it means is, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, everything we add has to be factual, and taken from an already published source, like an article in a reputable newspaper or website, or a book, but not like a blog or messageboard postings. So that the reader can check that what we've written is actually true and not just our own opinion. You'll have noticed little numbers after sentences in articles, click on one of those and it takes you to an entry in a list which shows where the info in the sentence came from. Like if you click on the [2] in the 3rd line of Birmingham City F.C., it takes you to an entry which shows that the info about the changes of name came from Matthews' Encyclopedia, and clicking on the [3] in the 2nd para takes you to an entry that shows the info about Blues spending the majority of their history in the top tier comes from a webpage, click on the blue link takes you to it. If none of this makes sense, and for an explanation of how to do it, have a look at Referencing for beginners, or go to the Welcome page or the New contributors' help page, where people who explain things better than I do can help you. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to stop adding your personal opinions to articles. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to User talk:98.248.33.198. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. A3RO (mailbox)  21:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

21 Card Trick
When you get back, can you take a look at the talk page for 21 card trick? We can discuss the code and its relevance in there. Lot  49a talk 17:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks again
Only some two days after losing your editing privileges for having a go at other people, you are back at User talk:98.248.33.198 doing exactly the same thing once more in the same place as before. This is not how Wikipedia editors are supposed to behave, and is not the standard of interpersonal communication here. If you are unable to meet our standards for working with other people, you will have your edit privileges revoked again, and the end of this road that you are currently travelling is where that revocation becomes permanent. Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks

Yes, I have a problem with the editor you've mentioned (and judging by its talk page, I'm not the only one). He/she seems hellbent on deleting as much material as possible without any just explanation; wherever, whenever. When my other contributions have been modified by other editors, I've willingly accepted it and even thanked them for their explanation (go ahead and check if you want). Perhaps your issues should be with the editor you're defending and not me? Think about it. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt
You did source a chart position, but not to the statement you made, instead it is given to cite the statement about the "monster hit" with Aaron Neville, which is not covered by the source page at all. Meanwhile, it in no way supports your statement that she is essentially unknown in the UK. I also notice that of the eight albums listed on that page, five of them listed at above 40, with one of them reaching #15. Basically, the statements are still uncited and do not support her being "essentially unknown". This content doesn't belong in the lead, anyway. The lead should only reflect content from the main article, and none of that is covered in the article itself in anyway. While we're at it, perhaps you could explain why this statement needs a source, while your first change to the page would be considered appropriate and with no need for sourcing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't for trying to one up somebody. Every edit I made on the Linda Ronstadt article is according to policy regarding sourcing and has nothing to do with trying to score some point off of you. It isn't a game, it's adherence to what you sourced and what was not included in any type of sourcing. In fact, Rondstadt had two singles which reached good chart position in the UK, "Don't Know Much" reached #2 and remained high in the charts for several weeks and she had, as I noted above, 5 out of 8 albums which reached over the top 40 spot. Calling someone essentially unknown requires valid sourcing for that fact, not trying to prove it through questionable mention of chart positions, which has nothing to do with anyone being known. That makes it personal opinion. For the record, I didn't change back your fact tag to the Bush article, someone else did, and I suspect that will happen again. Perhaps you should read some basic Wikipedia behavior guidelines and for the love of all that is sacred, take some time to read WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:V and desist in trying to play "I got one over on ya" games. Not interested. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the fact tag you placed on "perfectionist", although I do note that article itself goes to some effort to describe her approach in that vein. I'm not the one you should ask that question, especially considering that all I did to that article was revert your statement calling her "egotistical", which would generally be considered vandalism by most editors passing by. I'm not thinking you meant that in a neutral way, but the bottom line is, your issue isn't with me and I'm not going to spend time defending something that I have nothing to do with. You have issues with the way the Kate Bush article is written, which for the record is a featured article and has passed much greater scrutiny than you're giving, take it up with the person who removed your fact tag. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)