User talk:Qwghlm/archive1

Welcome
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 (~&#126;); 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! --Flockmeal 00:14, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Re: Jason Leonard
From NPOV. Please read.

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By "opinion," on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There's bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express opinions. That the Beatles was the greatest band is an opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion. That God exists ... this is a troublesome and ambiguous phrasing. The question of whether or not God exists is a matter of debate; statements about the existence of God are to be considered opinions, while the fact of the matter is considered undiscovered, indiscoverable, or illogical by some, provable, proven, and perfectly reasonable by others. To state outright that "the existence of God is an opinion", "subjective", or "a personal decision", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias), or that God only exists in the human mind (Atheism).

For determining whether something is fact or opinion in this sense, it does not matter what the actual truth of the matter is; there can at least in theory be "false facts" (things that everybody agrees upon, but which are, in fact, false), and there are very often "true opinions," though necessarily, it seems, there are more false ones.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles was the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles was the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. We realize that this does not IN FACT convert that opinion TO a fact, it just says it is a FACT that: "this person holds that opinion."

It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population.

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important that we bear in mind that there are sometimes even disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. (Theological and philosophical debates are particularly hard to frame in a non-biased way; this very page bears that out, as it posed in a previous incarnation as an example of an opinion, "God exists".)

But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)

I am going to add back a new version of the disputed sentence. Can you please stop deleting it.GordyB 22:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The above comment was based upon a misunderstanding, and was resolved at Talk:Jason Leonard.

Chinkies
Chinkies - sorry that you are offended by that but it is definitely normal slang for a Chinese food restaurant, I left England 25 years ago and we said it even then. It has not caught on in the US at all but here they don't tend to create those slang words nearly as often. I want to assure you that when I say it, it is not meant to be the least bit derogatory, I love Chinese food and have several Chinese friends. Bob Palin 21:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Corpus Christi College
Were you an undergrad at Corpus, or did you live in Leckhampton? Undergrads may not realise the size of Leckhampton since it's somewhat of a separate entity.. the article has also changed since you voted to delete it; perhaps you should have a second look. cheers, Mlm42 00:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Was only an undergraduate, but spent two years after graduation living in Cambridge while some of my best friends were Corpus postgrads, so I spent a fair amount of time in Leckers. It's a lovely place but IMHO it is not important enough to warrant a separate article on its own. Qwghlm 09:42, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I quite understand about the spoon thing. Clearly you were the unwittingly exploited by an evil Johnian conspiracy : )! Dreadnought1906 18:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The images of London st. 15
Thank you very much for taking these images, they're already in use at is:Lofsöngur and will hopefully propagate through the other Wikipedias soon.

Getting images of a plaque on a house in Edinburgh was a long shot, thanks:) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:57, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Behtzi
Feel free to merge Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti with Behtzi. I agree with you that one article would be better.--SqueakBox 16:50, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

MK Dons
As you can see, still a great deal of bitterness. If anything, the vandalism is getting worse. So much so that if you know a friendly local administrator it would be best to get a lock put on the main article and any proposed changes have to go to talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C. for NPOV peer review first. --Concrete Cowboy 18:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean the partisan edits, I meant the block deletions and subtle vandalism like Dons -> dongs.

Are you volunteering to do the rewrites? There is a good, well researched article giving the history up to mid 2003 on the Guardian website here. --Concrete Cowboy 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Rewrites
This looks reasonable to me. However I strongly advise putting a big comment line in each to say "before you edit, please read the Talk: page, because this article is the outcome of a lot of debate." I'd do it, but I can never remember how to do a comment! (some combination of <! and ---, but it never seems to work for me). --Concrete Cowboy 18:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Consultation on colours and badge
I think you are allowing the consistent pressure from AFC fans to pull you away from the mid point of neutrality. This is what I had ready to use when we had an edit conflict:
 * In June 2004, Winkelman announced that Wimbledon would change its name to Milton Keynes Dons, having previously promised fans a vote on the issue.The committee of the official supporters' club had voted unanimously for the word "Wimbledon" to be retained in the name: Winkelman claimed that he had accepted the spirit of this by including the word "Dons". When the club formally emerged from administration under the new name and ownership on July 1, he also announced new team colours and a new badge without consultating the fans (though no other club management does this either).

I think you should look at it again. --Concrete Cowboy 09:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I was in "They change the colours every season mode because of all the merchandising income and never ask" - forgetting how the sentence started. --Concrete Cowboy 15:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal
There's no point having the image twice, especially as its copyrighted. It is more relevant in the crest section where it is discussed. ed g2s •  talk  10:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's always going to depend on font-size, screen width etc. The layout is never going to be rigidly fixed. Anyone reading the section "crest" would still be able to see both images whilst reading about them, even if it does spill down in most cases. ed g2s  •  talk  11:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?
 Did you know has been updated and a fact from the article Antonín Panenka, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

Penalty Shootout
I accept that the english could not be the best, but instead of reverting to a stupid mistake I think you should have re-written the sentence. It says: Teams take alternating turns to kick from the penalty mark in attempt to score a goal, until each has taken five kicks or one side has scored more goals than the other side could possibly score. - Isn't it? So... let's think together... if a penalty shootout is 3-2 after the 3rd round, the team that missed one penalty and is loosing can only score 2 more goals, and the other has 3 goals scored: more goals than the other side could possibly score. Am I right? The penalty shootout ended! How can that be? Have you ever played football? Think a little bit, friend!!

Yeah, you are right, sorry for that, it is better now. Good work! Afonso Silva 23:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Chris!

Thanks for the work on the article about Stokes's law! My English is terrible, but I tried to do something, I'm happy to see that someone went there to improve the work!

Thanks again,

Milena

Aaaaaaaaw, sorry!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi again, Chris!

Forgive me for being so stupid, but let me tell you how my "little" mistake started: I was looking at the page of the requested articles, and it was written there: "Stokes's Law"... But I didn't look for a very similar writing: "Stokes' Law"... and the article was already there when I "created" another one... I believe you merged both, or just deleted mine, I don't know.

I'm new here in Wikipedia, and, as I told before, my English is poor (I really need practice).

Thanks, again,

Milena

Eddington
I'm well aware that the historical case of the 1919 eclipse observations is very complex (I'm a PhD student in the history of science myself), but as a brief example it works well and is one I think people will be fairly familiar with. I'd been wanting to write a full article on the eclipse experiment one of these days, because it is really quite fascinating, and is one of those textbook stories of "scientific triumph" that is so often quoted though it has so many more levels of depth to it (i.e. the simple fact that during the eclipse and before the eclipse the photographic lenses were exposed to radically different temperatures and thus had all sorts of focusing problems), not to mention all of the rather interesting problems leading up to the observation (World War I plays into it in some way, if I recall), etc. etc. Its benefit to the predictive power article is that it was indeed a prediction of Einstein's and the confirmation -- though disputed both in fact and interpretation by many scientists -- was more generally taken as a confirmation of his theory's accuracy and has certainly been retrospectively re-tooled backwards towards that end. Which is to say, I think it makes an okay little example (one which is pretty easy for a non-historian and non-scientist to understand -- Einstein predicted X, they then saw X), even if things were actually more complicated (as they always are). --Fastfission 15:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AFC Wimbledon
Thanks for fixing my Friday afternoon blunders. I hadn't appreciated the effect of single line breaks. If you are interested, the bit on Ownership and Legal Status is probably the most important. From your user page I see you are interested in "left-wing" politics and the not for profit, co-op status of AFC is, I believe, a really significant development. Cheers. PeterGrecian 28 June 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Fair use
Greetings. You marked Image talk:Thierry Henry headshot.jpg as an imagevio, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Fair use, by definition, doesn't require the author's permission; I could put a photo on my web page and say "any reproduction is forbidden under any circumstances", and you could still legally use the image under the fair use doctrine, so long as the fair use rationalle is justified. Perhaps PromoPhoto isn't an accurate description in this case, but I still think a fair use claim can be made. Cheers, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, permission is not needed for a fair use, but the first point I made on Image talk:Thierry Henry headshot.jpg was I didn't believe fair use didn't apply in the first place: from the context the photo is in, it's not stated that the shot is a publicity shot for the purposes of redistribution by others, like a publicity photo should do, if it is to come under fair use. All that picture is a straightforward reproduction from the website, and an unauthorised one at that. Qwghlm 12:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * All fair use is unauthorized reproduction. If it were authorized, fair use would not be needed. If the website had said the image was intended to be redistributed, then we would have permission to use it, and we would not need a fair use claim. The only time one has to make a fair use claim is when you don't have permission to use an image - but it's legal to use it anyway (under a limited set of conditions.) Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 12:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to have got my point: In my opinion, this reproduction is not fair use. Now please tell me why you think so. Qwghlm 13:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I left a fair use rationalle on Image:Thierry Henry headshot.jpg. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Football
I noticed you've made a lot of edits to football articles and wondered if you'd like to join WikiProject Football. It's still new and there isn't a lot happening yet, but we're hoping to get things like a football collaboration of the (week/fortnight/whatever) going soon.

CTOAGN 19:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Leigh Richmond Roose
Hey Chris - thanks for going over the Roose page for me and for your help. Tried several times to get the peer review request to work on the relevant page but it wouldn't - now I understand why. I'm still new to all this, so I appreciate your help. As for having heard of Roose, no reason why you should have; I suspect he's only remembered by other goalkeepers. Being Welsh and a 'keeper myself, I have the right qualifications to be interested.

One of my long term projects is research on goalkeeping in the Victorian/Edwardian periods - I'm particularly interested in the way in which style of goalkeeping evolved. For example, one of the references I cite, Francis Hodgson's book Only The Goalkeeper To Beat - a generally pretty well-researched book - suggests that 'keepers never dived until around 1900, a suggestion I find a bit unlikely but can't at the moment disprove. When I can spare the time I am going to spend a few days at the British Newspaper Library going through a sample of contemporary newspapers & compiling every reference I can find to the various types of save made in matches of that period - with a big enough sample it may be possible to be more definitive about this lost aspect of the game.

Looking at your profile and list of interests, you might also be interested in the short article I've contributed about Philippa Schuyler. There's more to say, and I'll get round to expanding it some time. Regards, Mike Dash.

PS - Used to take tutorials from a guy named Patrick Zutsi at Leckhampton, but that was 25 years ago. He was pretty useless, BTW.

Roose again
Hi Chris. I'm not completely sure what Roose did after 1912. I've read somewhere that he went back to Wales and played at least occasionally for Llandudno Town, but I need to stand that up. As and when I do, I'll update the page.

Have already enjoyed your piece about Jack Kelsey, another hero of mine. As a lifelong Cardiff fan I am looking forward to reading what you have to say about poor Dan Lewis of greasy jersey fame some time. Best, Mike

copyvio?
I see you've marked an image I uploaded as a possible copyvio. If you'll take a look at my talk page, you'll see me being advised to get an explicit licence from the webmaster of http://soccer-europe.com/. If you'll then look at the category page "Soccer-europe images", you'll see the approved licence. The webmaster assures me that what I have on the category page (and in the SocEur template) is correct; I don't know why he hasn't updated his website to reflect that, but as that's his website I don't really care, either. --fuddlemark 21:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, that was quick! Cheers. --fuddlemark 21:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thierry Henry stats
Hey man, what's up? Your table looks a whole lot better than mine did. I agree, I thought the formatting was a little weird, unaligned, and confusing. I'd be glad to help you out with the footballing stat table.

copyvio cont.
(I don't know if you wanted replies on mine or yours, so I've copied the whole thing over from my talk page) Hi, sorry for marking Image:JensLehmannEPL.jpg as a copyvio, I have now reverted it back. It was in good faith, though, the images do not make it clear that permission has been explictly given. Could you please make it a little more obvious? At the very least, there should be a link in the SocEur template to the full text of the email from the webmaster of the site (or a message on his site saying WP has permission, if it ever appears) licensing the work. Qwghlm 21:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. I was a bit short with you on the copyvio page; sorry about that.  Bit of an overreaction on my part, I suspect.  For some reason I kinda took the "says it's permission, but it's not" to be an accusation of bad faith!


 * After EagleOne's suggestion, I wrote the bit on the category page, and posted it after getting it approved by the operator of soccer-europe. I should've added it to the template, too, but forgot (I'll do it after uni, I guess).  I don't feel comfortable posting the full text of private emails -- even with permission -- and I doubt it'd be much good anyway, as it's basically "how about $Licence" "excellent", but I'll ask him if he can change the wording on the soccer-europe website. --fuddlemark 07:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal squad numbers
Qwghlm said: Hi - the Arsenal squad numbers you're using are out of date - the squad numbers for 2005-06 are on the club's official website - here (Quincy is now 26 rather than 42, and most of the other fringe players' numbers have been dropped). I've reverted the article back to what it was (which agreed with the official site).

Thank you for reverting it - I wasn't sure myself whether the squad numbers were still up to date or not - I know some of the players were in the wrong squads - that's merely because I haven't looked at them for so long and so many transfers have taken place since then. I guess the best place at the moment is the official site, rather than soccerbase, so..Bobo192 | Edits

Qwghlm said: Yeah, I'd go with official sites. The BBC's Arsenal squad page is now up-to-date (I checked it a few days ago and it wasn't) numbers-wise though, so it might also be up-to-date for other clubs.

I presume it's up to date for other clubs. The BBC are very useful for that kind of thing and as soon as changes normally take place they are available on their website, which is always very advantageous for such an important site. I will surf on by there very soon.

Qwghlm said: PS Unrelated note - from the above comments I presume you've thought about filling in the 19xx-xx in English football-type pages; I think this needs to be done. I haven't much time at the moment but in a few weeks I'll have some spare time and was thinking about starting it then (at least the 80s and 90s). If you fancy giving a hand too let me know.

I can certainly give the years in English football a shot. I've had a template on my user sandbox for ages, I'll get a template up for easy surfing between years on there very soon as well. The only question is the amount of information it should contain. FA Cups and leagues only, or incorporate this with other things too (if so, what others?) What are your thoughts? Bobo192 | Edits

Decade splitting
Qwghlm said: Also, I think the nav template you've designed is too big. How about splitting it into decades?

I was considering this, but I wasn't entirely sure of the best way to do it. Similar to the year pages, cf. the yearly navigation on 2005? Bobo192 | Edits

While I'm still thinking about it, how do you feel about the layouts of the Scottish league tables, for example, 1950-51 in Scottish football, etc. I mostly mean for aesthetics, but also for space-saving and bordering at the same time.. Bobo192 | Edits

Uniformity
Qwghlm said: Actually, having just seen those Scottish football seasons, I like how they've done the tables there - they look nice without being garish and over-laden like 2004-05 in English football. Maybe we should follow that style, not least for uniformity's sake.

The later Scottish league tables rather than the earlier ones, 1890-91 onwards? I've worked on a lot of the early ones without using the prettytable format, and I think I've done a rather good job.

Re: templates - my idea was to do the following - have a header and footer template, as well as templates for every decade. Then for every year, there would be three decades' worth of navlinks - preceding, current and following, for each year e.g., every year in the 1990s would have: Re: templates - my idea was to do the following - have a header and footer template, as well as templates for every decade. Then for every year, there would be three decades' worth of navlinks - preceding, current and following, for each year e.g., every year in the 1990s would have:

How about something like:

for each decade, with a labelled template name.. I don't know, that's something of a rush job, maybe you can think of something better. Thank you. Bobo192 | Edits

Mockup
Qwghlm said: Hi there - I've designed a mock-up of what I think should be in each English season of football page, at User:Qwghlm/Season in English football template - I've basically taken the same sort of design from the Scottish football ones and tweaked it slightly. Let me know what you think and feel free to edit it yourself.

I'm away for a short break over the bank holiday weekend but should be back next week.

A very nice mockup, very readable and swiftly accessible. I think we're going to have to pinch it. Will we have to include headings of === Teams Promoted === and === Teams Relegated === as well? That would make the article easy to read for those who are only going to read a season's worth of information. Of course, the Major news would be in date order from the beginning of August (more or less) to the middle of May.

I'll see what minor edits I can make to it myself - otherwise have a good bank holiday break and I'll see you again next week. Thank you. Bobo192 | Edits

Denis Law is back on FAC
Hi,

I've re-submitted Denis Law on WP:FAC as I don't currently have enough stress-related illnesses. It hasn't changed much since you voted support a month ago, so could you please have a look at it and vote again?

Thanks, CTOAGN 19:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voting. I'm pleased to say that it passed.  CTOAGN 18:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

UEFA Foreigners' rule
I thought Irish players had been counted as foreign at that time and just looked it up in Manchester United in Europe which confirmed it. You're right about Irwin and Keane playing - I've confirmed it as the lineup's in the back of the book. Nicky Butt had to play (doubt he had had more than 10 or 15 games at that time), probably because Ince was suspended from getting sent off in Gothenburg. I'm guessing Ferguson just had to choose between Keane (foreign) and McClair (also foreign) for the other midfield place as even Darren Ferguson would have counted as a foreigner.

Dunno about finding champions league lineups online - manutd.com used to have a database with just about every United team list ever but I can't find it on there and don't know if it's still up. I've got all United's in the back of the book I've mentioned - could scan them in and email them if you want.

FAC
I noticed you're sampling the delights of being an FAC nominator. I found it a lot of hassle when Denis Law was on - what with many articles having only 5/6 days on there it gets a bit hectic when someone opposes after about day 2 - so if you need a hand leave me a message and I'll see if I can fix something that's objected to. I'd been thinking of making a suggestion on the wikiproject that the members give each other a hand when someone put a related FAC on just to spread the workload around a bit. Besides, it might give me a chance to get Sharpe and Yorke's hat tricks into the article :-D I'll have a look at it tomorrow and vote on it.

CTOAGN 23:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Template: England national football team manager
You said: Hi there, I noticed you created Template:England national football team manager about a year ago. I have noticed that is the same as Template:Succession box, with an extra parameter that is never used, which means it's effectively a duplicate. Therefore for consistency and layouting's sake I have replaced all instances of it with Template:Succession box and nominated it for deletion at Templates for Deletion. If you don't agree with my proposal then please comment there. Qwghlm 17:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. --Lancevortex 14:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal FAC
First of all, I love the phrase "the less cerebral Up The Arse!".

I had a good look at the supporters section, didn't see any obvious mistakes. I don't want to be too picky about a single sentence, but I don't think it's right to imply that the United-Arsenal rivalry is only down to the two clubs having been the main challengers for the league. I can remember a spectacularly bad-tempered match in around '87 when Rocastle was sent off, and of course there was the 21 man brawl at Old Trafford in '91. Maybe something along the lines of "Arsenal and Manchester United have had a strong on-pitch rivalry since the late 1980s, which has sometimes led to clashes between the two sets of supporters", ideally with a footnote linking to an article mentioning crowd trouble after the 0-0 at Old Trafford. CTOAGN 23:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I remember there being crowd trouble after that match but can't find a single link. It would be better if the sentence mentioned supporters given the section it's in, but there's no way that's essential imo.  I think the sentence you suggested is fine.  CTOAGN 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Capacity of Highbury
Was Highbury's capacity really as high as 60,000 in the late eighties? I thought Old Trafford was the highest at that time, and doubt it was over 54,000 at the time of the Taylor Report. ISTR Parkhead being the only club stadium in Britain that held 60k+ at that time.

The article's looking good - reckon one more support vote might be enough. CTOAGN 19:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)