User talk:Lewisskinner/Archive Jun 2007

Robin Hood, Leeds
Why remove it? Genuine district of Leeds (eg one of the wards is "Ardsley and Robin Hood"). PamD 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Though if I replaced it I'd make sure it didn't link to the person - probably add to the Robin Hood disambiguation page, too. PamD 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it just redirected to the legardary character. Maybe create a page for the district, and then link it from there (or as you say, link from the dab page, and hope someone else creates the page).
 * Unfortunately, ward, counstituency and borough names do not always mean a lot. Stocksbridge and Upper Don ward for example in Sheffield, covers areas which are not usually considered to be in the Upper Don Valley, and also does not cover areas which usually are!  A little close to your home, Calderdale and Kirklees in W. Yorks are just invented names for the boroughs!  If the borough in which Leeds is located can be called Leeds and contain Wetherby, and the borough in which Wakefield is located can be called Wakefield, but contain Castleford, there's no hope!   L.J.Skinner wot 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a page for it and sorted out various links. Hope all is now well.  PamD 15:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note on my talk page
Hello, L.J.Skinner, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Lini 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help. You may reply to me on your own talk page in future if I make first contact there.   L.J.Skinner wot 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hicks Building
I have added a "" template to the article Hicks Building, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Adambro 16:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of coord
Hi Lewis. As I'm sure you can appreciate and as I've said previously, seeing the constant additional and removal of coord is getting very annoying. In reference to this recent edit made by you, could you assist me in clarifying what coor title d does that coord doesn't. Please don't see this as an attempt by me to argue what could be seen as Andy's case. This is certainly not my intention, and I have in fact been disappointed by the actions by a number of editors in relation to this issue including those of Andy. I do however feel that coord offers advantages whilst at the same time preserving the general presentation of pages for our readers and in this sense agree with Andy. It would be nice to get this issue finally resolved and so I'd be interested to hear your opinions. I must apologise if you have addressed this elsewhere, I've been away for a little while recently so not had the opportunity to follow this issue in detail. Thank you for your help Lewis. Regards. Adambro 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * coord is not yet ready according to MOS talk - at least there is a vigorous discussion about whether it is ready. So I personally advocate awaiting consensus followed by a bot. -- roundhouse 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What nonsense. coord is more than "ready"; it's used on tens of thousands of articles already. Andy Mabbett 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the opinions of Lewis I seek, hence this message on his talk page. I have no desire to see every mention of coord turn into an argument and am fed up with it happening. It does nothing to help the project and only polarises opinions further. Constructive discussion is what is required and what I am trying to facilitate. Please leave a message directed at Lewis, to be answered by Lewis. Thanks. Adambro 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'll refute disinformation wherever I see it. Andy Mabbett 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. There is no consensus that coord is ready; indeed if we remove AM from the discussion at MOS talk there is unanimity that coord is not ready. -- roundhouse 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "There is no consensus that coord is ready". Sigh. That's balderdash. It's used on tens of thousands of articles already. Andy Mabbett 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is another place where there is no consensus that coord is ready. Asserting repeatedly that it is ready is not persuasive. -- roundhouse 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That two-month old discussion does not say what you claim it does. Andy Mabbett 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, seriously now, both of you go away and allow discussions of coord to go on without feeling the need to interrupt all the time. If I leave a message on a user talk page it is because it is them who I am interested in hearing from. Neither of you have provided anything which helps me to justify the interruptions. Any further comments on this page which fail to do so can be considered purely disruptive to the project and my aim to try an help resolve this issue. If Lewis feels it more appropriate he is welcome to contact me via email as it seems that users are unable to see any mention of coord without feeling the need to reiterate their already known views and so further slow the process. The sport of arguing about coord has no place on Wikipedia and must stop. Adambro 21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Adambro, and thank you for bringing this to my attention in a civil manner, and without personal attacks. That is rather unusual for comment on this topic!
 * First of all, I'd like to talk about the page and edit in question, I direct to to Pigsonthewing's edit before the one you cited. Here, he claims his edits are an "update" (they are not - it is his opinion) AND, he marks the edit as minor (knowing all the controversy surrounding these templates, I feel this was deliberately disruptive). Looking back, we can see that at this point, there were coordinates in the coor title d format, and moving through the versions, I removed the merge suggestion and then added a template, before Pigsonthewing then felt it prudent to change to coord, as stated above.  All this having never added to the page before.  Is he stalking my contribs?
 * To get onto the issue:


 * 1) I first of all do not like microformats.  I feel that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these are supposed to be read by humans, not machines.  Many users have deleted items on individual trams stops within the Sheffield wikispace stating "wikipedia is not a travelguide" and " wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (from WP:NOT).  Microformats, as Pigsonthewing himself states are used to extract personal data/addresses etc (especially the hcard microformat) from articles into a user (person)-readable form.  I feel that this contravenes the two above stated guidelines.
 * 2) I am likely to be overruled on the above, but that does not change this discussion, in which user declare that google has not even caught onto the coord yet, and we should use the coor title d, coor title dm, coor title dms family until issue with coord are fixed (see particularly these comments), when a bot may be used for the transfer.  As stated, I do not like this idea per reason #1, but as it is (likely to be) consensus, I will not obstruct wiki in the WP:POINT-driven manner which Pigsonthewing is using now.
 * I hope this satisfies your concerns, but please, reply if you need clarification.  L.J.Skinner wot 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to reply so comprehensively. Firstly, I don't wish to get involved in any discussion about whether Pigsonthewing has been stalking you as I see this as a distraction from the main issue of coord so will not comment on this. Certainly as far as I am aware the problem with Google has yet to be resolved so I can understand your objection to coord on that basis. Once this has been addressed I see nothing else to prevent conversion to coord, by bot or manually.
 * I do think you might be contradicting yourself slightly though, saying that adding machine readable microformats violates the guidelines yet being concerned about ensuring the data is machine readable by Google. I do support however your concern that our priority is support for Google, microformats or anything else which may be useful whilst maintaining the presentation of coordinates shouldn't be at the expense of the already existing Google support. Again, if this issue is solved then I see nothing else to prevent the implementation of coord with microformats. Regards. Adambro 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I apologise as it seems I have not been clear. My primary objection is to the use of microformats at all, per discussion above.  However, I understand that many users like the machine readability of the templates, and so as a compromise, I see coor title d as a far better option for now, since this function actually works, unlike the coord.  Afterall, the current version is essentially the same as me reading about a place, finding the coordinates and then using my OS map to look up where it is (it just externally links to a map website).  However, users should not be coming to wikipedia to find the address of a school or postcode of a hospital - these data should be in the school or hospital's website in EL.   L.J.Skinner wot 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * coord is working perfectly, so your assertion is false. It also has nothing to do with postcodes or addresses. Andy Mabbett 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The contradiction is not slight; it's absolute. Andy Mabbett 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Is he stalking my contribs?" No. Nor am I using sock puppets to abuse you in a cowardly manner; nor have I been blocked for making personal attacks against you. You're in no position to cast false aspersions.


 * " I first of all do not like microformats." - perhaps you could tell us how, if you choose not to use them, they affect you?


 * " I feel that [using microformats] contravenes the two above stated guidelines." It does nothing of the kind; if it did, then so would PERSONDATA, which is widely used.


 * The opinions you cite above do not reflect nor form Wikipedia policy, nor do they preclude the use of coord.


 * Your accusation of WP:POINT is fallacious and constitutes a personal attack. Desist.


 * My name remains, Andy Mabbett 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could I ask that Andy clarifies whether coord is working with Google. Whilst the template may function perfectly fine, if using it may lead to Google missing articles then it can't be described as coor title d plus microformats which is what will satisfy other editors that it should be introduced. As I said earlier, it will be much easier to introduce microformats if they are not at the expensive of the current Google system.
 * Also, Andy, you deny Lewis' suggestion that you have violated WP:POINT yet continue to insist other editors refer to you by your name as opposed to your username. I'd suggest this is disruptive when it seems clear that others will be aware of your opinion on this issue. Adambro 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Could I ask that Andy clarifies whether coord is working with Google." You'd have to ask Google, or the editor who took on responsibility for liaising with them, but who hasn't answered questions on the issue for about two months. I can't make any sense of your other comment. Andy Mabbett 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No Pigsonthewing, and I have not been blocked 23 times. Nor have I previously been banned for one year, and currently serving an indefinate parole, and nor am I currently subject to a one year revert limitation.  Could someone please tell Mr Kettle that Mr Pot is a'callin'?!  Additionally, if you were to read the explanation of the alleged sockpuppetry, maybe you wouldn't use it on every instance of reporting me
 * Also, I really like that everytime someone disagrees with you, you run crying about personal attacks. It is not a personal attack - it is true.
 * As for the stalking, well, here is one piece of evidence, and here we see that the verry second I remove the PROD tag and improve, you dive in requesting citations everywhere. You're surely watching my contribs, following me around in an attempt to annoy me and disrupt the project = stalking!
 * And whilst we're throwing WP-pages around, please go and read WP:CIV, which states that "Whereas  incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and  stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.".  You are causing me greater stress than I care for over a project I use to better inform the lay-person, so I ask you to desist in you contant incivility.
 * Finally, why is it that when Adambro came to my talk page to ask for my opinions on a matter, that within an hour, both yourself and Roundhouse0 had turned up to start trouble (or may I say that you used personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict)?  I do not appreciate this behaviour from either of you.   L.J.Skinner wot 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I commented first: I had no particular reason to think that AM would be watching your page at the time (it looked like this) although I see from the history that he had made earlier remarks. It is quite common to find contributions from several editors in a conversation on the talk page of one of them. As I have now been rebuked by both LJS and Adambro, I shall remove this over-sensitive page from my watchlist, forthwith. -- roundhouse 12:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was not specifically having a go, I just felt that Adambro was after my own opinions here, and it did not need you and Pigsonthewing coming in a causing conflict. He is as much to blame as you are.   L.J.Skinner wot 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Check your email
As above. One Night In Hackney 303  20:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for your help.  L.J.Skinner wot 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cease making personal attacks.
You have already been blocked for incivility, yet you are still making personal attacks. Desist. Andy Mabbett 20:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh god, not again! Please, where is the attack?  Show me!  I was asking the user not to engage in disruptive behaviour (as you had indicated you didn't like) whilst also pointing out that you have previously done likewise to me.  I also said you'd probably blank my message pointing this out to you, which you have (big surprise there!)
 * Whilst from now on you will I'm sure use every oppurtunity you have to mention my block, kindly also fast forward a few edits to my (truthful) expanation, and please and take a look at your own block log. Again: 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' leap to mind...
 * Now, how about you go and read these pages you constantly throw at people (I suggest you start with WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:POINT) and then come back and apologise to me firstly for falsely accusing me of an attack, and secondly for this blanking and PA-loaded edit summary? Whilst you're at it, maybe you can apologise to  as well for your hypocrisy.  If you cannot or will not do that, kindly leave me alone.   L.J.Skinner wot 20:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for agreeing with me on the above issue.  L.J.Skinner wot 12:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote
Hi Lewis, could I get your thoughts on that quote? I'm trying to clean up the article, which strikes me as pretty wildly embarassing -- I don't know if you saw it a half hour ago. The long quotes seem clearly unneccessary and WP:Undue weight, though, am I wrong? Thanks, Mackan79 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tilt up
At least the majority of my fact tags in Tilt up were legitimate. Could you please contest specific instances on the Talk page? Thanks, Vagary 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I had intended to restore the paragraphs: as the resulting buildings are strong and durable, energy efficient and increasingly attractive. They have developed into a building solution that creates a strong and inspiring image for many owners including churches, athletic facilities, civic buildings and detention centers
 * and
 * The mission of TCA is to expand and improve the use of tilt up as the preferred construction method by providing education and resources that enhance quality and performance,
 * but I had not spotted the fact tags. Was there any reason you felt the above two paragraphs needed removing?
 *  L.J.Skinner wot 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Galeries de Hull
What are you doing? Corvus cornix 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ^^Empty page...  L.J.Skinner wot 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it is. Before, you reverted my db- tag back to the original version.  Corvus cornix 02:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Donation
PLEASE STOP!!!!! Please look at what you are reverting! You are reverting good edits back to vandalism!!!!! Corvus cornix 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please go back through all of the mass reversions you have done, read each and every one of them, and fix the vandalism you have reverted to. Corvus cornix 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
An unacceptable number of your recent reverts revert obviously good-faith attempts to improve articles. It's clear that you're not properly reading the revisions you're reverting. Just a few of these include: So you're blocked, and blocked you'll remain until you provide another admin with a very good explanation of these edits, and an undertaking not to behave in this manner in future. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * and your reversion of Corvus cornix on Galeries de Hull, and willfully false answer to his query above


 * More:
 * 
 * 
 * - Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict): Sorry, I was on vandal patrol, but I was a bit late on some - I'm very tired, but just trying to help.  May I ask what you mean by "willfully false"?  It is a deleted page isn't it?  I was checking he had the correct page linked.

As for those cited bad edits, contrast: (this I found particularly offensive)  (likewise this one)  (a particularly bad place for vandalism) and many more good edits besides.  L.J.Skinner wot 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lots of people are on vandal patrol; they manage to remove vandalism rather than restoring it. You've not explained why you ignored Corvus cornix' requests for an explanation. And your explanation on Galeries de Hull continues to be nonsense - you removed a speedy delete tag. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LJ, I don't think you've gone rogue or anything, but you're no good to us tired. Go to bed, get some sleep, come back when you have some free time to edit and are well-refreshed and put up an unblock request.--Chaser - T 02:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict): I don't do VP very often, and I messed up - I have apologised for that.  I didn't respond as I didn't see the messages (I use the Lupin tool which doesn't bring up the "new messages" bar).  When I did notice messages, I responded, asking if he really intended to link to a dead page, or if it was a spelling mistake.  Look at my history here I have only ever been blocked once, and that was for comments made about a user who persistantly harassed me until I just snapped - why would I suddenly want to throw away my reputation?  I actually enjoy wiki most of the time!
 * The time between Corvus cornix's messages and my blocking was not long enough to provide me time to correct my mistakes (as suggested by the user), which I had started doing when I was blocked by you.
 * Not that it would have helped as I didn't see the messages, but why did Corvus cornix report me at WP:ANI and not inform me on my talk page (as is both customary and polite)? If this had happened, I coud have apologised and explained there.
 * I didn't see any point in notifying you about my post at ANI because you weren't responding here on your talk page. I figured you were not interested in communication.  Corvus cornix 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the above where I mentioned this - "Not that it would have helped as I didn't see the messages", and please don't be a WP:DICK.  L.J.Skinner wot 20:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * talking of which, WP:ANI - admins don't seem too unhappy  L.J.Skinner wot 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"I have only ever been blocked once, and that was for comments made about a user who persistantly (sic) harassed me until I just snapped" - no, that's not what happened. You were not harassed; and you were blocked both for incivility, and for using sock puppets to harass over a sustained period; violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your several requests for unblocking were refused, and your attempt to pass responsibility for your sock-puppetry to others were described as "not credible" by one admin and another told you to "come off it" and pointed out that "Wikipedia is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid". Stop trying to blame others for your own misdemeanours. Andy Mabbett 05:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume you can read, as you are using wiki (although your microformat edits would suggest otherwise), so would you please do so? I was blocked for incivility (remainder of rant ignored).   L.J.Skinner wot 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can read; that's how I was able to find the above comments about your fatuous denials. I note that the formal reason for the block was for "Attempting (sic) to harass other users" However, on re-reading it does indeed seem that you got away scott-free with your repeated sock-puppetry and abuse, even though one of teh admins who declined to unblock you said "the sockppuppetry alone is well worth 48 hrs". I doubt you would be so lucky a second time. Andy Mabbett 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Yes, I can read" - good, please do so then (rant, false accusations and general attempts to get a rise out of me ignored).   L.J.Skinner wot 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Leadmill
Hey cheers, theres loads more on the leadmill website if i knew how to reference i would reference it Bobertesque 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look a WP:REF for more info. Basically you just need to add  , and then add   at the bottom of the page.   L.J.Skinner wot@