User talk:Manitobamountie

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! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Talk page
No one is censoring anything - merely following policy: the talk page is not a forum for discussion of personal opinions about the subject, it is only for discussing ways to improve an article. The commentary on Talk: Caroline Kennedy was inappropriate for an article talk page. Please read WP:NOTFORUM for more on this. Thank you. Tvoz / talk 02:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone should read the book 1984 or speak with the Obama campaign about their treatment of WGN radio and newscaster Barbara West to understand censorship. :) Manitobamountie (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have no idea what you're referring to, or what it has to do with your comment on the Caroline Kennedy talk page - I am merely responding to what seemed to be an accusation that the talk page was being censored, which it was not. Tvoz / talk 07:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cornwall stubs: Bishop's Quay
Hi, just a quick observation for you to consider. WP:Cornwall members (of which I am one) have added a large number of new articles recently. Most are still stubs but some have already blossomed into fully referenced longer articles (for example, see our collaborative work on Bodbrane. As a project, we are fairly assisduous in newpatrolling Cornish stuff.

At the risk of sounding tiresome, you have put a tag on the article Bishop's Quay which, as you know, displays the message "This article does not cite any references or sources". No offence but that article clearly does cite a verifiable source: Ref: Ordnance Survey 'Explorer' 1:25000 map, sheet 103. Everything in the article can be verified from that source. In fact, a paper copy of the map is not needed. Did you bother to click on the coordinates? If so, you would have had access to a wide range of mapping (including the UK's Ordnance Survey 1:25000 mapping) which would verify the facts in the article.

If you read Verifiability you will see the emphasis put sources for any material that is 'challenged or likely to be challenged (WP's emphasis). I would be interested to hear from you what there is in the article that is likely to be challenged? Did you click on the coordinates at the top of the article? If so, you would have had access to a wide range of mapping (including the UK's Ordnance Survey 1:25000 mapping) which would verify the facts in the article.

Anyway, no harm done - the ref has been inlined and the tag has gone.

Sorry to be a bore but sometimes when newpatrolling a light touch is more effective than heavyhandedness. Please don't go dropping tags like confetti over the Cornwall stuff - it means someone has to go round sweeping up. You can rest assured we're on the case and will get round to the articles in due course. Season's greetings (or, if you are a Christian, happy Christmas) from Andy F (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. The tag was not an appropriate one, and the map reference is great. Also the line note ref format you have added is superb. By the way i wasn't "new patrolling". i just clicked on random article. The other thing i find amusing is that you and i both like map references for sources. I have seen more than one editor simply remove an ordnance survey map as a reference. In any case, i apologise for the rough treatment and wish you a Merry Christmas. Manitobamountie (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And a cool yule to you and your loved ones - may peace and contentment be yours now and in 2009 Andy F (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)