User talk:Road Wizard/Archive 3

UK legislation templates
I have had another go at these. Please have a look at Template talk:Infobox UK Legislation to see what you think.Cutler 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have been away on 10 week Wikibreak so am no longer addicted! (as if ...) other template was created because of capitlisation and redirect is fine. Well done for the tirying up.Cutler (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

23 August
I copied the wording directly from here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at User's talk page. Road Wizard (talk)

House of Lords article
Yes, thanks for that. It was supposed to go at the top of that section and not in the image description! TreveXtalk 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Angband (band)
If its right why Ahoora are in the unsigend bands section at myspace!!!!they are unsigned and just send their cds to this store to sell, just Check them at myspace. from the other hand real2can is more like an online Records store, Its not a label. you can send your Cds and they sale it like Cd baby.--85.15.24.162 (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at Articles for deletion/Angband (band). Road Wizard (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I see that article was deleted because in that time there were no reliable source to confirm Angband are the first metal band from Iran to sign a deal with a european records company, but now there are many sources like www.lordsofmetal.nl or www.stormbringer.at, so I think you should let this article to come to life again. thanks --Spada2 (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at User talk:Spada2. Road Wizard (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

someone impersonating me
So, I did actually leave the warning on the IP user's page. However, that IP user then gave warnings, using my name, to User talk:71.106.182.162 as well as the one you spotted at User:Fry2000. Any advice on what to do? I'd rather not have this IP continuing to use my name. I changed those two signatures-should I do more/what more can I do? Loggie (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at User's talk page. Road Wizard (talk)

Talk:Gordon Brown
hi i wish to complain about your stance against NPOV NPOV does not extend to article discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.83.136 (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not WP:NPOV, it is a matter of WP:BLP. Please read the appropriate guidance as
 * "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:
 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability
 * No original research"
 * If you have a problem with the WP:BLP policy, please take it up at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Road Wizard (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Open Rights Group, London election 2008
Responses have been made to your edit of the report by the Open Rights Group report on the London Elections 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_mayoral_election%2C_2008#Open_Rights_Group

Hopefully this provides the sources you where looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlynWintle (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the edits. It appears that the sources I asked for were provided several days ago, so I am unsure why it is still an issue. If you want to add the information back into the article then there is nothing to stop you. Road Wizard (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for spending the time looking at it. Keep up the good work. --GlynWintle (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick fix to current class
I thought I was going nuts, and trying to trace it to its source was difficult. Thanks from someone who was just watching! - LA (T) 19:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Left-Right Politics
Hallo there. You recently changed the description of the Liberal Democrats on List of political parties in the United Kingdom from progressing 'slightly to the right' to 'slightly to the left'. The economic policies of the LibDems are now more right-wing than they have been traditionaly, but the centre ground of British politics has also moved to the right, giving the impression that the LibDems have not changed much at all. With Wikipedia, we should remain objective and unbiased by current trends in politics, so I ask that you do not edit it back again unless you have some new sources. The basis for my description of political parties comes from the political compass website Asha28 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. I will need a bit of help with this one as I cannot recall the edit you mentioned. I have looked back through the article history but I must be missing it. Can you please point it out to me or give me the date of the edit?
 * For your other point about not changing your edits, can you please point out the consensus to treat the Political Compass as a reliable source. I recall asking you a similar question on an article talk page somewhere, but I am unsure whether you replied. If I recall correctly the website is acting as a primary source on the political positions of the parties and does not cite its reasoning for its decisions. Is there any evidence that the owner of the website has not just plotted a few points on a graph at random? Road Wizard (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I found the edit you were referring to. It was made by an anonymous editor a few days after one of my edits, so your comment was misdirected. Road Wizard (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

 * Oh I thought that the image was just missing from the article. OK then.--Avala (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IrishHistory
Hi there. Just thought I'd mention, I think the v4 warning for IrishHistory is a bit harsh. I think he/she's a well-intentioned newbie and edited the template by accident. Please don't bite the newcomers. justinfr (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was a first offence I would have used a uw-test (or an uw-vandalism2 that I gave to a repeat-vandal anon editor that made the same edit some hours earlier ). While I am willing to WP:AGF in almost all circumstances, the editor is clearly the same anon editor that was warned earlier. Also, we are not talking about a simple insertion of a joke edit on 1 article, we have a repeat edit that caused insertion of a whole article into 510 other articles. An already warned user causing that level of damage clearly needs to be advised of that fact in terms stronger than the original warning. Road Wizard (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, okay, sorry I didn't realize that it had happened earlier too. I had fixed a few of IrishHistory's earlier mishaps and they all seemed to be intentional unintentional. My bad. justinfr (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to suspect all this person's articles are spam, under the pretense of being "history". They also added an article for a "self-published" book, all copyvio text, which I've tagged for speedy deletion. justinfr (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering all of his questions on the talk page. justinfr (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I just confused over one thing. Do the articles like Electronic information industry in China or Industry of China discuss about People's Republic of China only, or PRC+Taiwan as whole? Please respond in your talk page. Thank you.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a potentially contentious issue, but unfortunately I don't have any involvement in editing articles about China, Taiwan or indeed the two articles that you referred to. I would suggest that you should direct your question to editors involved in working on those articles in the first instance. You may also wish to discuss the issue with WikiProject China as both articles fall within their scope. If you are not able to come to agreement with the other editors then you may wish to try more formal dispute resolution measures. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

August 23 and William Shakespeare
Sorry about that. What must have happened is that I glimpsed at "August 23" being on my watchlist due to some recent edits and thought about making that edit not realizing that I was on the wrong page. Okay, that is probably stupider than confusing The Departed with The Debarted due to it's one letter spelling difference. You get what I'm saying here? --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. ^_~ Road Wizard (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Template
Sure thing -- thanx!  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:DRosenbach/Newuserpage
Thanks. I'll fix it. Corvus cornix talk  18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mohd wara (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wizard, Sorry for the my action of deleting the afd sign. I ensure that you are a very qualified person for the job. And I didn't know that Mr Convex was told to do the action.

Issue about the deletion of (Pengiran Omar)

1. I know I need to have reference for the article but the reference cannot be listed due to the cause of unknown sources but still their are evidence of him exist and important. The evidence are:

a. The tombstone found in Sipitang graveyard. b. Witnesses from the time. c. School database

2. The reference above may not be accurate but still important. He also from reference b a leader of a party. And their were no observation of history at that time.

3. But please tell me about the cause of the deletion. I hope for this issue to be resolved and have both side to agree.

Best Regards'

mohd_wara
 * Responded at User's talk page. Road Wizard (talk)

Hello
Thank you very much for the welcome, I've been on here for a while now. Before I came on here I've been contributing from Harry Potter Wiki. But just one question; Why do all edits have to have an edit summary? Cheers, Neptune's Ivory, 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at User's talk page. Road Wizard (talk)

Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom
Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom should be just that; lists regardless of status. Category:Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom is for current offices, and Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom is for defunct ones. The only reason there are articles in Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom is because they also contain lists of previous office holders. The existence of both Category:Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom and Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom is essential because otherwise there is just a mess of positions at Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom. There are some cases in which doublecatting is acceptable; this is one. ninety:one 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Categorization and subcategories though the entire category tree needs sorting out. i'll try again.


 * there are two categories for categorising the offices: Category:Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom for the active offices and Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom for the inactive ones.
 * Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom is for lists of people who have held those offices. it just so happens that all the lists are included in articles about the offices.
 * so the second category contains all the lists, whilst the first two are functional categories. ninety:one 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * no, because not everything there is defunct. the vast majority are, but not all. ninety:one 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * sounds good. i'll go ahead and do it. it's always good to have an uninvolved take on a situation, i couldn't have though of that! ninety:one 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Convix is not responding
Dear Mr. Wizard, Mr Convix is not answering my answer in a few days before. And I'm just asking how is the issue going to be resolved. Also, How do I know that the issue is resolved when the afd sign or the article is still there?--Mohd wara (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at User's talk page. Road Wizard (talk)

"Unreferenced" articles
Hello. You tagged European Communities (Finance) Act 2008, European Communities (Finance) Act 2001 and Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Act 2008 as unreferenced, but they all have links in them to the full text of the acts, which back up the claims in the articles. What is it that you have a problem with? Is it the lack of inline citations? --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should probably have used Nofootnotes. I have done some work on the first two articles so neither tag is relevant anymore. I will sort out the third article after I have had some sleep. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The third article has now been sorted. I have taken to using primarysources for these situations now as the text of the Acts is the primary source for the article. Provision of third party sources that comment on the Act should be encouraged. Road Wizard (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gender recognition Act
You question whether the emotional stress placed upon people by the legal requirement to annul their marriage is verifiably cruel. How can it be otherwise? Even when the act was begin debated it was accepted that there would be suffering but there was no understanding of how great this would be. Getting people to stand up and tell of their distress is very hard for obvious reasons although a recent newspaper article  gives some hint of the problem. And yes in every case the distress is intense as otherwise the couple would have divorced in the normal way without bothering with an IGRC.

The other point about accessible reference material was referring to the the court processes. Court methods are not in the public domain in general but in this case there not even any internal guidance material either and the judges are "making it up as they go along". Generally conclusion is reached but not necessarily in a way designed to minimise the unhappiness.

I hereby give up,

Stephenne (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the user's talk page. The source provided here is what was requested earlier. Now that a source is available a slightly amended text can be restored to the article. Road Wizard (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now added more material with references. However, It is very hard to properly prove the distress caused to unfortunate married people caught in the jaws of the the GRA. In all known cases (and this is a very private matter) the non-trans spouse has becomes extremely depressed and sometimes dysfunctional. The trans spouse is of course racked with guilt and torn between keeping a job and further hurting his beloved. The abstract legal mind seems unable to grasp the human tragedies brought on by this unsympathetic legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenne (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
For making jokes on Wikipedia. I won't do it again except in the sandbox thingie. Have a good day! SAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.54.122 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

List of NHS institutions and organisations
Thanks for point out the minor edit thing on this page. I had set my preferences to "minor edit" by default and had forgotten to change it. Fixed now. Thanks also for resetting the page. Best wishes. Millstream3 (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
As you requested, I listed issues at the above FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the issues. I have been working on a few of them like the over-linking and referencing. Hopefully I will be able to get the article back up to standard before the end of the review period. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left more comments on the FLRC. The article looks a lot better. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the status of the article? Do you have any more work to do? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Hogg and other moved pages
Thanks for moving this page, I think the current arrangement for the Douglas Hogg articles is a good one. Now we just need the other two articles similarly moved by Squeakbox to be put back to their rightful places. Thanks again,  J Rawle  (Talk) 19:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I've just shortened the hatnote as I felt it was a bit too long. It's hard to think up a suitable form of words for it, so if the current one's not right, feel free to alter it or discuss it here.  J Rawle  (Talk) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy with your wording. It is a definite improvement. Road Wizard (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Joerg Haider
I have received your warning regading an " Edit War". Please check on the discussion page as well on the history of the other " warrior". All I did was defending the article against continously changes made by the same person over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxygen305 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Oxygen305. Road Wizard (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Sachs
Indeed, I am one of the editors who adhere by this and consistently remove questionable unsourced information, I was looking for the reference in which I had clearly seen him express this but before I had the chance it was rmeoved. I guess it is a hot page right now so anything added needs complete verification immediately, rather than within a few minutes. Still can't find it. There was an clip on The Guardian website I think in which he stated it but can't find it now. Ah well. There have also been many sources which have claimed that leaving offensive and disturbing people repeatedly by phone is against the law on grounds of anti-social behaviour, which is why many papers have stated that the police should be involved. Regards Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

Architects Act 1977
Thanks for your intervention on this page. I agree you're probably right to remove the lengthy footnote, but my reason for supporting your removal of the reference would be different, namely that as time goes by some information loses its topical interest and becomes more abstruse (which is, I imagine, the reason it was placed in a footnote and not in the body of the text in the first place). I therefore appreciate your placing the information on the talk page, for you never know, a serious researcher rather than just a casual visitor who takes a general interest in primary legislation may derive genuine satisfaction in finding it there; the very distinction, I hope you will agree, that marks an encyclopaedia (which should be an extensive knowledge resource) apart from a penny guide-book. A few points however:
 * You have left some external links (Blair, Kelly) which had relevance to the detailed former footnote but not to the article.
 * There is a balance between referencing all statements and introducing clutter.
 * The bullet-point statements are accurate (and, in point of fact can be verified easily enough by looking at the linked pages). And as to technology, if you have a way to put a reference on a footnote using the edit pages, then you are a lot cleverer than I am.
 * Your criticism is a little disparaging. It may of course be both accurate and justified, but pejorative language such as yours is quite difficult to read with a constructive attitude.  Perhaps it needs charity?  May I suggest that for the sake of the average grump you adopt the style of academia (which I admire but am no part of), which is to achieve a result coming up with an improvement rather than a half-baked detraction? Salisian (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at Talk:Architects Act 1997. Road Wizard (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)