User talk:SFC9394/Archive2007

Toolbox | ToDo | Sandbox | WIP'S | Commons | Meta-Wiki | Wiktionary Please click here to leave me a message.

Scotland Map
Can you please tell me how the map you keep reverting to could possibly be better than the one I tried to change it to? The map you keep reverting to is misleading for readers making them think Scotland isn't a part of the UK and is not in the same style used by all other UK countries. Somethingoranother 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How dare you threaten me in such a manner when I am trying to correct the Scotland article. The fact that you so blatantly refuse to accept the map style used by all other UK countries which is inarguably more correct than the one you seem so stuck on only proves that you are trying to portray an image of Scotland outside of the UK. As I said on the discussion page if and when Scotland becomes a separate country then the map you want will be correct. While Scotland remains part of the UK please refrain from trying to push your Scottish nationalist view onto the article. You remind me that I'm breaking 3RR then how are you not breaking 3RR too? You keep breaking NPOV for using a map which differs from fact. Anyway I've reported you to an administrator and they said I can change the map to the one used by all other UK countries as it seems to have no point of view and that if you revert it again you will be blocked for 24 hours. Somethingoranother 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

World Cup
Hello. First, I would like to apologize for being a pain in trying to append the World Cup Historical Rankings. I thought the first time did not post and I went at it again. But now I realize that there must be some requirements. Is there a way I can post that table? If not in the World Cup page, then somewhere else in Wikipedia? Are thre any specific guidelines I would have to follow? Thanks for your help, and again, sorry for causing heartburn.

princess_lily —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess lily (talk • contribs)


 * Hi there. It is no trouble to ask.  I removed the table due to other editors recently questioning it.  All articles here at wikipedia have an associated "talk" page (confusingly called discussion on the tabs at the top).  In the world cup talk page, Talk:FIFA World Cup a couple editors there have suggested it shouldn't be there as it is "original research", what that means in effect is that it isn't encyclopaedic work, but newly created ideas by yourself.  If the historical rankings table is something which fifa or some other official body has produced then it will be fine and it can go back in, but if it is just something you have created then it isn't really ok.  The other issue that the editors raised about it on the talk page was that you were using 3 points for a win - that obviously isn't historically accurate.  You are welcome to post your thoughts and reasons why you think the table should be included on the world cup talk page - some discussion might be generated and a compromise might be reached, but for the moment I removed it just to be on the safe side.  Best wishes, SFC9394 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of maps
Hi. As our in-house map expert, could you apply our standard location maps, as developed at WP:SCOWNB, to a couple of articles: I know that you have explained to me how to do it myself before, but quite frankly I could not make head nor tail of it :) --Mais oui! 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Airdrie, North Lanarkshire
 * Kirkwall


 * a.n. other: Wick, Highland. Cheers. --Mais oui! 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea
Hello, I'm Andrew from Hungary and I'm an amateur WP-writer but rather reader. In fact, my only article is the Hungarian Chelsea article. As I said, I'm amateur and I couldn't manage to link mine to the articles in other languages. So, I'd be pleased if you could make a link to the Hungarian article from the English one. Thanks for your help, Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.132.137.80 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Done. SFC9394 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Astroturf
Hi, I happened to be browsing a talk page and noticed your comments. It would be a good idea to welcome this editor and explain relevant policies such as WP:NOT, WP:ADVERT, and WP:COI before taking this to the Signpost or any other venue. Let's assume good faith and suppose this is a new editor who doesn't understand site policies yet. Durova Charge! 02:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I wasn't aware of the conflict of interest policy. It was my thought that someone who knew accurate information regarding the topic could share that information as long as it was done in a neutral way. I believe all of the information I provided was accurate and neutral, and the edits I made to the FieldTurf article were to neutralize the original language per the request of the "Advertising Box" at the top of the article.

I have written several objections on the FieldTurf article talk page with no responses or actions from other users. If there's not going to be any dialogue addressing the current concerns, and WP is not going to allow me to take action to address those concerns, then how will the article become neutral?

Here's an exmaple of the edits I attempted to implement. The following statement is currently on the FieldTurf article:

"'To combat the inroads into the market by FieldTurf, Southwest Recreational Industries, the manufacturer of AstroTurf, duplicated the product so closely in its AstroPlay line that FieldTurf sue the American company for patent infringement. FieldTurf lost the suit for lack of evidence,[1] and in late 2003 was ordered to reimburse Southwest Recreational Industries for approximately $4.3 million in legal expenses.[2] However, in early 2004 Southwest Recreational Industries filed for bankruptcy, citing heavy debt and inability to keep up with rapid market growth.[3]'"

How can an encyclopedic resource allow an argumentative and leading statement that was clearly negated in a court of law? This was purely written to make it appear like the modern AstroTurf product(s) are a knock-off of the FieldTurf product. And the last statement about SRI filing for bankruptcy adds no informative value to an article about FieldTurf, not to mention the resource is invalid.

FieldTurf is a major synthetic turf competitor, contributing to the replacement of what was once the most popular artificial turf, AstroTurf.

This statement is also argumentative, casts AstroTurf in a negative light, and in the least needs a verifiable reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tygast411 (talk • contribs).


 * Thanks for your comments. With regard to:


 * "I have written several objections on the FieldTurf article talk page with no responses or actions from other users. If there's not going to be any dialogue addressing the current concerns, and WP is not going to allow me to take action to address those concerns, then how will the article become neutral?"


 * The best procedure if no talk page discussion is generated (which can often happen with quiet articles) is to post the issue at Request for Comment which will bring it to the attention of a wide number of wikipedia editors who can then see whether the concern is valid and edit things appropriately. If you are from a Public Relations firm then it would be advisable to disclose that here on your user page to ensure other editors are aware of any potential conflict of interest.  The main issue here is not that mistakes, inaccuracies or bias should not be addressed - it is simply that other editors are aware of what your motivation is for correcting them - i.e. it is not just as a joe public editor, but as a PR representative of the company in the article or one of its competitors.  Transparency is all that is required. SFC9394 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I just posted a note at WP:ANI --Selket Talk 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know; I've dropped a note on the Signpost's suggestion page pointing to your comment on my talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to look at and make a few neutral edits to both the FieldTurf and AstroTurf articles. You recently removed a sentance fragement, "improving over the years so that today it [AstroTurf] performs and looks much more like natural grass." I agree with your edit and appreciate your neutrality. Moving forward, how can the AstroTurf article inform the WP user that AstroTurf isn't just the original product from the 1960s? How can we neutrally inform the reader that there have been numerous technological advancements to make the turf function and appear as close to natural grass as possible. Would it be neutral to list the technological advancements if credible sources were cited? Ben 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

SFC, when you get a second. Take a look at the edits that you rv'd and see if they're ok to be edited back into the AstroTurf article. If they're good to go, could you make the edits to the article yourself? Thanks. Ben 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments on one's own user talk page
I just posted this at User talk:Tygast411, and since it's about one of your postings there, I'm providing you with a copy:


 * While I too am a strong believer in WP:COI, I do want to correct what SFC9394 said. There is no policy that says that users may not delete content from their own user talk page, although sometimes "it is frowned upon".  In general, if you want to remove stuff, it is considered courteous to archive it - see How to archive a talk page - but this is in no way mandatory.  -- John Broughton  (☎☎) 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To postscript, my comment was added due to the deletion of the talk thread. While I agree with your words that there is no policy John, I'm afraid an editor deleting a talk thread while it is still active and while I am replying to it is bad form.  Editors may have the right to do so, but if they continually do so to active talking points when I am in discussion with them then they loose my good faith.  In light of the nature of the discussions (a pretty serious conflict of interest) I think I was entirely right to request that these comments not be deleted while the matter remained unsettled. SFC9394 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (With apologies for the belated response). You have the right to request anything you want.  What you don't have the right to do is to say that something is policy when it in fact is not.  Yes, deleting something from one's user talk page while a conversation is ongoing is almost certainly bad form, but there is no policy authorizing a warning for bad form.  And if a user choses to ignore your request, you may consider him uncivil or lose your good faith; just don't tell say that he violated policy by blanking.


 * I noticed another editor, below, said He has decided to blank his entire talk page, which I'm sure is against policy but I can't seem to find where I read that. I hope you've corrected this editor's misunderstanding, rather than encourage him to either continue to look for a non-existent policy, or (worse) to act as if such a policy existed.


 * Finally, please recognize that some editors may legitimately decide that they do not want to continue a discussion. Wikipedia has no rule requiring an editor to respond, and respond to a response, and so on, until both parties agree they are done.  (If there were such a rule, vandals and trolls could force administrators to spend huge amounts of time arguing with them.)  If another editor terminates a conversation with you, I strongly recommend that you turn your attention elsewhere, rather than arguing with that editor (on the editor's talk page) that the editor isn't finished with the discussion, and must talk to you.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, John, I don't have a clue what you are on about. "What you don't have the right to do is to say that something is policy when it in fact is not". Can you point out where I said that?  You won't be able to - because I didn't - and I don't know what your motivation is for implying I did when I very definitely did not.


 * "If another editor terminates a conversation with you, I strongly recommend that you turn your attention elsewhere, rather than arguing with that editor" - when did that happen in the astroturf conversation? "Argue"?  I think you are living in some parallel universe here - I am neither arguing nor posting excessively on anyone's talk page - and I am confused as to what your motivation is for making such an unfounded accusation.


 * I suggest you take your own advice and "recognize that some editors may legitimately decide that they do not want to continue a discussion". Thanks and goodbye. SFC9394 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR --Mais oui! 11:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gabrielleitao
Hi SFC9394, I see you have been following the activities of Gabrielleitao and he (I'm going to assume this is a "he") has been behaving inappropriately for a while. He has decided to blank his entire talk page, which I'm sure is against policy but I can't seem to find where I read that. I have also been following this user's edits for a while, and found that none of them are constructive and usually ignore protocol. I left him a warning which he also promptly ignored, as he did yours. Furthermore, I have seen identical editing behaviour from Kasparov, who has also ignored the two warnings for following protocol I left him. I have the feeling Gabrielleitao is a sockpuppet (or perhaps the "twin brother"). I don't know if you are an admin, but I was going to report his conduct if he continued his misbehaviour. Best regards, Icemuon 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In-house expert
I have mentioned you in despatches :) --Mais oui! 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place


 * Further to this, you thoughts would be appreciated at Template talk:Infobox UK place as the maps could do some work. Cheers, Regan123 20:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-authoritative
Re: "How can a world snooker reference be non-authoritative? They are the world governing body!" &mdash; Doesn't mean that just because they host a tiny, unattributed, and unsourced pseudo-article on their website that it is an authoritative source of information. One shouldn't confuse an organization's authoritativeness with regard to what the current international professional tournament rules are, with authoritativeness when it comes to historical research. :-) Frankly I would just completely remove that link as a source since what it goes to has no reliability basis in Wikipedian terms. There has to be a better source, that actually has a named author and a bit more depth. Heh. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Wow, that was one heck of a sourcing run at Snooker! &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is User talk:SMcCandlish "resolved" to the point of being archivable, or is there something remaining open about that issue? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Bailey (interfaith)
I saw your comment in another user's talk page, and came in as somebody unconnected with the first AfD. Based on the discussion at the AfD, it seems to me that Anthony Bailey (interfaith) is a recreation of an article that went to AfD—and I'm comfortable enough that I went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion. Good catch! —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I had just posted a question regarding his re-creation of Anthony Bailey (interfaith) on the authors talk page and then saw you'd nominated it for speedy deletion. I agree wholeheartedly. The Boy that time forgot 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for speedy tagging it Fred, I wasn't sure if it had to go through AfD again or if it could just be speedy tagged straight away. SFC9394 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

? Map for Mendip Hills
Hi, In the past you've helped me out with some great maps (Chew Valley & Kennet and Avon Canal). I've recently been editing Mendip Hills & have now put it up as an FA candidate. Amongst the discussion on this (see Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills) there are several requests for a map, including a comment that a map is essential for FA status - is there any chance you could help me out?&mdash; Rod talk 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response - a quick map of the Mendips would be wonderful as I think this is the only objection on FA that I can#t do anything about.&mdash; Rod talk
 * Thanks for the speedy work - are you happy for me to put it on the article page or will you? I've been offered the AONB organisations map - but they have gone back to investigate the copyright status etc.&mdash; Rod talk 22:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Claymores
Many thanks for comments. how does one go about proving the article, as references are not available on the internet? All fact are of course correct and documentised. Also, never noticed the derogatory desciption, thanks for bringing it up. The Clype 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once more, thanks. In response to your question, generally the source does include the quoted text, although admittedtly the email never described faded blinds, merely blinds.

Woodstock was a personal opinion so with hindsight should be removed.

The attack on a living person, I never saw as an attack however in the interests of trying to keep the article correct I will go back to the drawing board and re-write, trying to take out contentious comments. The Clype 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the contentious articles (ie biographic about a living person). Hopefully there will be no problem with my sources, as per my previous comment. Cheers The Clype 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Its/it's...
I'm going to re-revert your change to Lonnie Donegan (as you said was OK in your edit summary), but I wanted to let you know why. Yes, the flavor is a property belonging to the chewing gum, and with a regular noun, there certainly would be an apostrophe -- "chewing gum's flavor", not "chewing gums flavor". However, since we're dealing with the pronoun "it", things are a little different. The possessive form of "it" is "its", with no apostrophe, just as "hers" and "his" have no apostrophes. "It's" is a contraction of "it is" (or "it has"), so to use it in this case would mean not "the flavor of it" but "it is flavor". See the Wiktionary page for its for more information. Anyway, sorry for the long explanation, but I wanted to say why instead of just reverting without saying anything. :) Pinball22 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RolandR AV/I case
i request you don't become an inadvertant accomplice to RolandR's malicious activity by presuming the location of his comments to be the correct one. he has ignored the notice issued under the text (relating to the personal attack on me) and created a seperate out of chronological order complaint to make his complaint be "first" on the read list. however, the history of the page indicates that i reported a personal attack on me and afterwards rolandR has posted his vandalism complaint above the section dealing with the issue. Jaakobou 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not really fussed about whatever the dispute is about - all I am simply saying is don't delete other peoples comments when you are involved in a dispute with them. That is very bad form - please don't do it. SFC9394 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User: (talk and SFC9394. i did 'not delete or edit any comments.. only moved a misplaced comment to the proper chronological order since the other user has placed his "vandalism report" above my previous complaint for personal attacks. however, i agree that i should not move other user's comments which means i will only place links to my comments in the proper chonology. on a jokingly side (i hope you can take it on a lighter spirit side despite the heated situation) i was moving my own comments above rolandR's comments and not moving his comments down. on the serious side, user RolandR has removed the personal attack warning i issued on his user talk page. Jaakobou 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said - you were messing with someone else's comments. Semantics of "moving" don't really come into it - let an uninvolved 3rd party editor move something if it is in the wrong place, that isn't something you should be doing when in dispute. SFC9394 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i found a way to deal with the issue within' "good form" ethics. feel free to go over the entiree entire thread. Jaakobou 14:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Karlson and McKenzie" Date and Year links
Sure. No prob, Bob. My bad.

I'll go remove them now, if they haven't been already.

I don't mean to do "bad" things on Wikipedia, they kinda become "bad" when people notify me of my errors in doing them.

I don't intend to be of any inconvenience or trouble, 66.31.126.225 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem - I have removed them so there is no extra work needed. The rest of the work you are doing looks good - happy editing! SFC9394 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving images to wiki commons
Hi there SFC9394. Hope all is well. Quick question: How do I move images to commons that have been uploaded here on en.wiki? . Once an image is tagged for the move, should I as the uploader move it or is it now on a to-do list of some nice and efficient task force with people who are both tagging and moving? My problem is: I don't know how and I can't (sigh, blush) seem to find the instructions now. I have uploaded others during the last year or so that could probably be moved over as well. Thanks in advance. Best wishes, Pia 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear SFC, thank you so much for your help with the move and that elusive instruction page. Understand the procedure now. Yes, the take-off from Saba is almost as much fun as the landing ;). All the best, Pia 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox / Map
Ref this. I am sorry if you thought I was being rude, that was not my intention. Windows Vista had a moment and took out AWB so I had to restart and rebuild the list of templates. If I had noticed the reversion I would have not automatically reconverted. Please accept my apologies for this.

On another issue some of the locations on the Scotland map when it is automated with lat/long are not locating correctly. I understand you were involved in the original creation of the map and would appreciate any help you might be able to give, particularly with the issues at Peterhead. Regan123 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

SFC9394, I'm a staff person at the Smithsonian and after reading an article about how the University of Washington was adding "external links" to Wikipedia that link back to authoritative library generated resources (see the article in DLIB: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/lally/05lally.html). I asked my volunteer to start adding appropriate links to wikipedia articles (for instance, the article on crinoids links to our Smithsonian publication on crinoids and the Jules Verne article to a collection of images from 19th Verne publications).

This seemed like an acceptable use (non-commercial, promoting authoritative scholarly resources, etc.) but perhaps we went astray somewhere?

We have stopped adding external links at this point, but any clarification on why we were perceived as spamming would be helpful.

Thanks for your assistance. You can contact me directly (kalfatovicm@si.edu) if you wish.

Martin

Smithsonian added links
Ronz, I'm a staff person at the Smithsonian and after reading an article about how the University of Washington was adding "external links" to Wikipedia that link back to authoritative library generated resources (see the article in DLIB: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/lally/05lally.html). I asked my volunteer to start adding appropriate links to wikipedia articles (for instance, the article on crinoids links to our Smithsonian publication on crinoids and the Jules Verne article to a collection of images from 19th Verne publications).

This seemed like an acceptable use (non-commercial, promoting authoritative scholarly resources, etc.) but perhaps we went astray somewhere?

We have stopped adding external links at this point, but any clarification on why we were perceived as spamming would be helpful.

Thanks for your assistance. You can contact me directly (kalfatovicm@si.edu) if you wish.

Martin

? Map for Somerset Levels
Hi again, You have kindly made maps for Chew Valley, Kennet and Avon Canal and Mendip Hills etc. Could I be really cheeky and ask if you would be willing to do another one for the Somerset Levels? (Can you see a pattern emerging here?) I've just put this up as a GA & the pre review comment from User:Graeme Bartlett was that "It would be really good to have a map here to show the different rivers, places etc mentioned in the article" - it would also be really useful to be able to indicate the lowest areas above sea level as these are where most of the drainage activity has been undertaken (and may be abandoned in the future). As much of the area is already on Image:Mendip Hills Map.png I wondered whether this might be possible?&mdash; Rod talk 09:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

University of St Andrews revert
I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with your point re: reliability of sourcing. It seems quite clear to me that Ben Reilly, then Director of Representation at the USASA made that statement on that forum - where he has also made several semi-official statements and has never been challenged. Indeed, the site requires confirmation of every user via their university email account, so it would be near-impossible to defraud and maintain. Having other users refer to an email (which it would be impossible to source any other way) can be seen as plausible verification.

The website in question is well known and well used, it has been referred to in the student association's newspaper; such a statement - if false - could not possibly go unchallenged. --Breadandcheese 03:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well fair enough, I suppose - but the point is that it isn't simply hearsay, it's a clear statement from the person concerned. I shall attempt to track down a more reliable source; as you can imagine, it's quite frustrating to be aware (in common with the rest of the population of the place the article is about) of something written being effectively wrong and being totally unable to present it reliably. --Breadandcheese 18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Firm guidance to door required
"It has to stop - either by SP, range blocks or contacting ISP's - we have policies, and if people can't follow them then they should be shown the door." There are now over 100 identified sockpuppets of Mallimak, and at least another 20 suspected socks. When, may I ask, is he going to get shown the door? He is now into a pure and simple vendetta mode. When is the Wikipedia community going to act? I am fed up to the back teeth of this nonsense. --Mais oui! 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 


 * Now it has degenerated into stalking, pure and simple. It is my honest opinion that this person is suffering from a mental illness. I demand that the Wikipedia community take action. It is totally unacceptable that Users become subject to the foul abuse that I have suffered for approximately a year now.
 * 
 * --Mais oui! 09:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the evidence, I have to agree with Mais oui's assessment... — Nightstallion 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would lodge some text at AN and see what best course of action is suggested there. My rough assessment is that it is someone with problems.  One way or another it has to stop - the problem that so many who fly by here (or indeed anywhere on the net) often fail to realise is that actions have consequences. SFC9394 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mais Oui is right. Simple enough. Whatever actions must be taken, must be taken, in order to rid ourselves and our project from this menace. Canæn 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Snooker request
As a member of WikiProject Snooker, it is requested that you watchlist at least the following pages: Keeping in touch with the rest of the team via the project pages, and keeping an occasional eye on core articles will go a long way to strengthening the project and protecting the articles. Thank you for your time and attention. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Snooker - if the project members do not pay attention to changes at the project page, especially its talk page, effective collaboration will be nearly impossible and the project would eventually fail.
 * WikiProject Snooker/Wanted snooker bios - this is an important part of the project's to-do list.
 * Snooker - our main article, frequently subject to vandalism and nonsense edits that (historically) have sometimes taken hours or even an entire day to be fixed
 * Snooker season 2006/2007 - another important article
 * Snooker world rankings 2006/2007 - another important article
 * One or more player articles of your choice that you'd like to "adopt" as a guardian against vandalism, PoV-pushing, etc.

Thanks
Thanks for the message of support. Such is wikipedia these days I suppose. Maybe it'll get better, maybe you and I have just got too bleak a picture of it, maybe we're right. I certainly hope not, and I hope it gets better for all the good editors. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

External link
Thanks for your comments. I am sorry for adding the link, I thought it was a useful contribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Scotland map
SFC, hello. First of all I apologise for not coming to you in the first place but had absolutely no idea that you had produced the Scotland map until User:Anameofmyveryown told me. I had gone back to the talk page of the UK infobox a couple of times pointing out that the red dot didn't align with the correct geographic location. I feared that to get this working we might have to have a new map, then Anameofmyveryown saw my post and came to me and offered some alternatives including two modifed versions of your map. He was sensitive to having worked on your design and thought he may have overstepped the mark in some way. To start with I thought he had produced it completely from scratch but he informed me he just altered the projection. Obviously your green map which shows the whole of Scotland in incredible detail is the one to use. Anameofmyveryown's version of your map which to my untrained eye is the same, is here. I now wonder, what is the best way to proceed? Thanks, --Bill Reid | Talk 11:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reply here
 * Please see here for my response. If you wish to respond, please do so there instead of on my talk page. Anameofmyveryown 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous flagging of link spam.
Hi,

I am really quite confused as to why you have flagged my wiki contributions of external links as link spam.

I am suggesting very relevant (not spam) external links to a very high quality website containing thousands of poems of various poets. These are complete, public domain, poems from original sources. They are freely accessible, and this site is very quick and easily navigable. Poems are indexed by title, first line, and last line. I don't see this as being any different than any of the other links posted in the external links section.

I thought that so many complete, organized poems would be a very relevant contribution to Wiki.

One confused wolf. Companyofwolves 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, please see WP:EL for a full run down of the policies we have here at wikipedia with regard to external links. Basically all you have done is add links to a single website across tens of articles (and if it was acceptable then the precedence would be set for that to be replicated across thousands of articles).  The site is commercial (there are adverts at the side and the bottom of the page), and as you so correctly point out the content is in the public domain (hence we have it replicated at here at wikisource - ad. free).  Basically your links were removed because they add nothing new to the articles and the methodology of the way they were being added suggested a website was being promoted rather than the reader being helped.  Thousands of sites contain the content that the one you were linking to has - we can't have an article filled up with thousands of links. SFC9394 22:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments.


 * Because a site may have commercial elements to it does not mean it is a bad site. This site is not the only one in the external links list for Ella Wheeler Wilcox that has google ads. (see Ella Wheeler Wilcox - an advanced soul). Most excellent sites do have a revenue model.


 * As for the Gutenberg listings, while I commend them for the number of works they are amassing, also have links "spammed" in a myriad of topics, it kind of makes me think they are promoting that site. How do they do it? Have you ever tried to find a specific poem in Gutenberg? Needle in a haystack. My suggested link offers search features that these other sites do not even touch, or could touch.


 * If this is your criteria for rejection, apply it uniformly across the board.


 * Companyofwolves 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Because a site may have commercial elements to it does not mean it is a bad site" Indeed - but when a site contains nothing but content that is available from a non-commercial source then it does mean it is a not preffrable site.  Individual, indpendent, editors will have added links to gutenberg - "they" - don't exsist.  "My suggested link offers search features that these other sites do not even touch, or could touch."  Apart from our own wikimedia project, wikisource.  If your suggested link was a well known central source then there might be some merit, but it garners 10 hits on google, (including self-refferential ones).  At the end of the day anyone can set up a website, copy a load of poems by well known (& PD authors), add a sprinkling of banner ads and then attempt to make money.  Wikipedia, as one of the top 10 websites on the www, has to ensure people only interested in making money can't spam such sites here - hence the strict rules we have in place on external links.  SFC9394 00:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lesley Riddoch
I understand that Wikipedia biography articles on living people must always be very careful not to make claims that are either vain puffery or defamatory, and that the policies are appropriately very strict on this. I agree that all of us editing articles should, therefore, err on the side of caution when dealing with unflattering information, if there is any possibility that that information is incorrect (or even expressed in an inflammatory way).

In the case of Riddoch's false claims to be the first female president and first non-Conservative president of the Oxford University Student Union, however, there is absolutely no doubt that she has made such claims, and that these claims are false.

I have added a reference to the article in which she makes these claims directly in a first-person article she wrote. She also used to make this claim on her own web site, but has deleted the claims in the current version of her site (although she has never issued a correction).

The fact that her claims are false are so well documented as to make them absurd. The student union itself is older than the oldest political party, and therefore the majority of presidents were non-Conservatives. In any event, the very first president recognised by the University was both female and non-Conservative: Emily Wallace was elected on the Labour ticket in Michaelmas term 1970, and officially recognised by the University's governing council in Hilary term 1971, as fully documented in the University Gazette (the official record of the University) in January 1971. As well, several of Wallace's successors and Riddoch's predecessors were also non-Conservatives, including Michael Sullivan, the labourite who has some claim to being one of the most influential presidents in the union's history.

Given that there is no doubt to the factual accuracy of the assertion in the article, and that the assertion is written in a factual and non-inflammatory way, I think they must remain.

Caravan of One (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic pronunciation
Happy new year to all! : ) Coming back to the Gaelic place name question... I've thought about this and looked around many English wiki pages on geographical locations and a great many of them list native/local/alternate names, for example Lake Victoria, Lough Neagh, Lough Erne, Snowdon, Mousehole, the Dodecanese, Sakhalin, Munich... the list is virtually endless. Couldn't we agree that Wikipedia has enough space to accomodate the information that either of us consider relevant to other users? I'm sure the admins would prefer us to co-exist : ) Akerbeltz 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]

Your block request
Thanks for your WP:AIV report; I went ahead and temporarily blocked. For future reference, please be sure to issue warnings each time you revert a vandal. Thanks for your help in fighting vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They got a bv from me - that is all I give to a blatant before reporting to AIV for a hands down vandal only editor. SFC9394 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Hendry
Hi there, can you keep an eye on the above page for a potential edit war I want to avoid with an unreg. user? I'm conscious of the need to avoid eulogising the subject in the way that person's doing. And if I get the time, the O'Sullivan page needs a substantial tone down (last time I looked anyhow!) Thanks, bigpad (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)