User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 15

=February 2008=

British athletes
I seen that you reverted edits in the List of World Nine-ball Champions article. Anyway, here's something I wish to know.

When Brits participate in sporting events, I wonder why they use these minor flags?

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

In popular culture that pertains to anything in Great Britain, we don't see those flags.

Why they almost don't use the much more famous Union Flag? 🇬🇧 122.3.107.84 (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There remains a great deal of nationalistic pride among the "constituent countries" of the UK (i.e. those entities that formed the union in successive Acts of Union), and this is due to the history and nature of the British Empire, former colonies of which are even more independent nations but which in many cases still offer fealty to the British Crown on one level or another (this is true of at least Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and I am sure there are others). There is a lot of confusion between the definitions of "culture", "nation", "state", "nation-state", "country", "empire", "commonwealth", "federation", "confederation", etc., etc.  The Welsh, as one example, are (objectively speaking) a culture (albeit one increasingly blended with English culture).  Wales is also a country by some definitions, and a nation by some definitions (some of which are synonymous with country, some of which are different and compatible, and some of which are incompatible).  The UK by different definitions can also be called a "country" or a "nation" (among other things).  And this isn't actually even getting into real governance – Wales has no separate parliament, while Scotland does, making them different kinds of "countries" or "nations" within the UK.  There are even more complicated examples, like the Isle of Man, that I won't even get into.  At any rate, the UK itself by official decree (and without getting into what a decree from the Crown means vs. legislation passed by the British Parliament, or worse yet the Canadian one, or the Canadian President vs. the British Crown, and so on and so forth) has declared that England, Scotland, Wales are "countries" within the UK, has historically claimed Ireland (entirely) and given it this designation, presently holds Northern Ireland as a territory (how it is designated I do not know right now, but I do know that the Ulster Banner was decommissioned as the governmental flag of Northern Ireland, and it no longer has one at all individually, only the Union Jack, while the U.B. is still semi-officially, i.e. by decree of sports governing bodies, not the government per se, used in sporting contexts (neutrally), even while it is also used unofficially in a highly partisan manner by Unionists as a purely political symbol, giving it two very conflicting meanings in the public eye).  And the UK has given no status at all to Cornwall (despite it being clearly both a culture and a nation by some definitions) to such an extent that it has been absorbed as part of the British county (county, not country) of Devonshire, to much Cornish chagrin, leading to both a small nationalist movement and a broader resurgence of efforts to preserve and promote the Cornish language.  And so it goes...
 * To my knowledge, the Union Jack is in fact used in some sporting contexts, especially those of a global nature such as the Olympics, but this is not the case with a number of other sports, including football (soccer) in most cases, and in snooker. I suspect that the separate flags are mostly used in sports that originated in or have historically been dominated by England (as distinct from the UK as a state or meta-state) and in which there has long been intense "national" competition between England, Scotland, etc.  This is clearly the case in football (soccer) and snooker, but clearly not the case in most Olympic events like ski jumping or pole vault.
 * Anyway, the UK is basically just a special case when it comes to flags. Various Native American and Indigenous Canadian tribes (by constrast with Australian Aborigines, etc.) have been recognized as "nations" legally, including in some cases by internationally recognized treaty, by both the US and Canada; Canada has also recognized Quebec as a "nation within a united Canada" whatever that means, and Texas has all along retained the right, unique among the United States, to leave the union and resume being a separate nation-state (thus the still-current state pride boosterism phrase "the Great Nation of Texas"), and Hawaii furthermore retains a vestigial royal family (with no official status under US law, of course, but with enough public native-Hawaiian recognition that there is even a Hawaii – or I should say Hawai'i – nationalist movement lingering around them. There are even weirder examples out there, too.  But none of them use their own "national" flags in sports (that I know of); just the "meta-country" ones; only the British ones that I can think of use the "sub-country" flags in this way, at an international sporting level.
 * And think of Germany; much of west-central Europe was once nominally part of Germany, and the forking of it into everything from the Netherlands and Luxembourg to Switzerland, Austria and Liechtenstein is far more complex than most Americans comprehend. For example, some of these places are dutchies and principalities even today within the German system of nobility and royalty, despite not being part of Germany any longer and despite Germany itself essentially abandoning the concept – though of course many well-to-do Germans insist upon retaining their von landed-family names and insist that they are the Duke (or whatever) of (where ever), despite these titles no longer having any governmental authority in Germany whatsoever (which not the case in Liechenstein, nor in Malta, which uses the even more otherwise extinct French system of nobility). One could write a doctoral thesis about this stuff and how it unwinds when you follow the threads.  I bring this up because there is a direct correlation between a German dutchy or principality on the one hand and Wales being a principality of the UK and under the British system of nobility (which does retain governmental authority – the UK head of state is the Crown, and the House of Lords has more power than the House of Commons). Meanwhile there is also a less direct correlation between Liechstenstein and Wales, in that both are widely regarded as "countries" or "nations" by some definitions (the former much more so than the latter in most senses); the principal (no pun intended) difference is that Germany no longer lays a governmental claim to the former (nor France to Monaco), while the UK does lay one to the latter, as it does to Northern Ireland, and of course to England (it being the political center of the UK in a similar way to the District of Columbia being the power base of the US), and to a lesser but still palpable extent to Scotland.
 * (A lengthy aside: Scotland is the "Texas of Britain" in a sense, given that it retained several self-governance rights upon union that other union members did not, some of these rights and powers being less obvious than Scotland's somewhat recently re-separated Parliament and other nationalistic moves, and its very long-standing and unique three-verdict legal system. A stranger example is the highest authority in Scottish heraldry being the King of Arms, and that title being quite literal, to such a degree that the Scottish King of Arms has the legal authority to override the British Crown on matters of Scottish heraldry and Scottish inheritance, because their ranks, in that context, are equal, meanwhile the Scottish King of Arms is sovereign when it comes to Scottish heraldry, and the British Crown is not, only over English, Welsh and I believe Irish &#91;including Republic of Ireland&#93; heraldry and inheritance of titles &#91;not property any longer, in the RoI, but still in NI, ENG and WAL&#93;).
 * Sorry I am rambling, but this topic – what a "nation" or "country" or "goverment" or "authority" or "state" really is – is rather fascinating to me.
 * The ultimate point, the Wikipedian point, being: If the British habitually and quasi-officially use England, Wales, etc., flags in particular sporting contexts, and this use is respected internationally, then Wikipedia is bound to respect this also, per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
 * Hope that helps.
 * PS: I have to strongly disagree with your statement that "&#91;i&#93;n popular culture that pertains to anything in Great Britain, we don't see th&#91;e separate&#93; flags &#91;for the constituent UK 'countries'&#93;". Having actually been all over the Isles in person, I can attest to their overwhelmingly frequent use, in many contexts (some are politicized, but not all of them; in sporting contexts in particular they are not regarded as political in most cases).  Agreed that few other than nationalists avoid use of the Union Jack, of course.  From what I can tell, the use of the separate flags is closely akin to the use of US state flags in the United States, though a bit more nationalistic in many British cases than even in Texas. :-)  —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the point. So the reason regarding the flags is some rivalry between sub-countries in the UK. Anyway, pardon me for being less specific about that popular culture thing. When I say popular culture, I refer to things like documentaries, movies, television series, certain stories, etc. When they're about the UK, almost all the time, the Union Jack is the flag being used. 122.3.107.84 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alex Higgins
Stanton, you're reasonably fair, so would you take a look at the above page? I'm embroiled in a 'controversy' with an anonymous IP who persists in reverting a factual section of that page, despite his talk and tha article's talk pages containing comments about this. Another contributor, via my talk, has noticed the same person's stubborn reversion of other pages and unending POVism. Thanks, bigpad (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the IP address? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is User:78.16.160.173, I tend to lean a little toward his view on this one specific edit (have not looked into other stuff in his/her contributions). My feeling is that scandal/controversy should not be included on articles about living people unless both sourceable and markedly pertinent; even if pertinent it should not be the focus of a passage unless the scandal is important to the lifestory of the article subject.  That a fellow player dished on him is not particularly pertinent for the reader.  That said, I'm surprised that 78.16.160.173 would editwar about it, and argument can be made that the conflict between Everton's and Thorne's opinion is pertinent.  It might be possible to simply restructure the sentence, to essentially say "his skill and dedication to the game are well-demonstrated by his success to date, despite being criticized by Thorne [source here]".  I.e., make it a positive statement that mentions the criticism in passing, instead of being focused on the criticism and then rebutting it. I'll try a compromise edit of this nature and see if it sticks. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 10:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Voodoo Tiki
I've done everything right. And everything was on my user page by the time the article was unprotected.

I have added references. See my user history please, see my long unprotect request messages please.

I do not understand what is going on here. Please let me know what is wrong with the article. It is not an ad, it is my work for the Wikipedia. If I am doing something wrong, please help me to correct the problem.

Update: Please check the discussion page. I've noticed that Ian Chadwick is marked as spam. He is very well known in the Internet, he has contributed to the Tequila article and he is currently present in other Tequila articles on the Wikipedia. How should I add a reference to his site? Will that help my article? Thank you! I have to work on those reference links, as those are not spam... and I have more, but I will talk about them in the discussion page. Anyway, thanks for your help SMcCandlish.

--Ubzy (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this has been adequately responded to at the Articles for Deletion discussion in most aspects (the short version is that it is written like an ad or at best like a magazine article, not like an encyclopedia article, and does not have enough sources of that kind that are useful here). As I said there, this is nothing personal and it is not about you, it is about whether the article is encycopedic, and whether the article demonstrates the subject's notability. If you are adding sources and otherwise improving the article then it will probably survive AfD. PS: Adding a link to Chadwick's own site does nothing at all to establish his notability.  Please read WP:N.  The primary notability criterion is non-trivial coverage in mutiple, independent, reliable sources. Hope this helps. PS: New talk page discussions go at the bottom of the page; you can most easily add one by simply clicking the "+" button at the top of a talk page. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Thank you for your help! :) and I understand that this is not personal, I don't take it personal at all. It is just a matter of quality (and I'm learning). So I appreciate your comments a lot. See you! Ubzy (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish/Carrom Dron Award
Hi SMcCandlish, I have moved the material from the deleted article into your userspace. Sorry this took me awhile, I hope you're able to integrate it into the Carrom article. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It wasn't urgent anyway. I have now merged it into International Carrom Federation (since it is an ICF award, and Carrom is a more general article), and tagged User:SMcCandlish/Carrom Dron Award for speedy deletion. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Carrom
Hello Mr. SMC candlish. Thanks for you support in carrom wikiproject. Punjab State Carrom Association is a Carrom association of Punjab State it is not a small tate of india and carrom activities goes on in 28 carrom states and 7 union teritories. Like you said Punjab State Carrom Association will be merged, similar articles with same legnth will be created in future for all associations. And you are merging Carrom Rules to article Carrom waana add more that carrom article also contains non carrom cue carrom sports and rules or laws of every carrom sport is not same these are some prescribed laws by ICF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpt lucky (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that Punjab state is not small. That wasn't the point. Texas is not a small state of the US, but the Texas affiliate of the Billiard Congress of America, for example, does not have its own article, and shouldn't; we don't create articles for every single thing that could conceivably have an article (see WP:NOT), and this is especially true of sub-organizations of larger organizations.  The usual pattern on Wikipedia is to create a rich and complete article on the major organization, and include sub-organizations in that article.  So, additional Indian state-level articles on AICF affiliates should probably not be created; rather, the Punjab one should probably merge into the AICF article, which should be expanded to include the officers, divisions and notable champions of each state/insitution affiliate.  There is not a "hard and fast" rule about this; it is just a judgement call. In my experience here, articles like the Punjab State Carrom Association one usually get forcibly merged by consensus at WP:AFD, simply because they are not individually notable enough for their own articles. Meanwhile, a national-level organization article like the AICF one will usually survive as a separate article.  So, you can of course write all of them as separate articles and just see how it goes.  They certainly should not be outright deleted, simply either merged or left as-is.  But beware creating new articles on the local and institutional sub-sub-organizations, as those will have nearly zero chance of surviving.
 * Rules and equipment should definitely be covered at the main carrom article; that's pretty much what that article is for! It should be an overview of everything important about carrom. If a huge amount of material is available, some of them can eventually be broken out into separate articles (see, for example, billiard ball and billiard table and glossary of cue sports terms, which are now separate from cue sports. About two years ago, all of this material was in the cue sports article, and that article became much too long.  This isn't the case with carrom, and probably never will be, since there is much less material - there is only one carrom governing body, and one major set of rules, while cue sports (billiards-family games) have many, many, many variations all over the world.
 * Lastly, yes, the article also briefly covers games obviously derived from carrom, since this adds depth and understanding to the article. Eventually there might be enough material about American carrom to break that out into its own article, the same way that novuss is a separate article, as are pichenotte, pitchnut, crokinole, etc.  There's nothing wrong with this process (see WP:SUMMARY); it's just normal here. As articles grow and grow, they branch out into new articles to keep the original article at a readable length, and to prevent the creation of unnecessary tiny stub articles (see WP:STUB) that are unlikely to ever grow, such as queen (carrom) which I've already merged into the main article. For the variants, like American carrom, it is simply important to keep them in their own section. The article should cover what carrom (the original game) is, its history, what the equipment is, what the rules are and how the game is played, and mention the ICF and so on.  Below this there should be a section on variants and derived games.  This way the reader is not confused into thinking that the ICF rules apply to novuss or crokinole or whatever.  I believe that the article is already structured this way.
 * Hope this helps!
 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User WikiProject Cue sports
A tag has been placed on Template:User WikiProject Cue sports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I tagged it with db-user so it gets deleted faster. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cue sport FA
Hey. As a (very) part-time member of the project, I was wondering if we could instigate some kind of FA drive? I'm 100% certain an article like Steve Davis would (with a bucket of work) get there. Let me know if you'd be prepared to spend some time working with me on it! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this will need to be done one step at a time. The order I would suggest is Peer Review, followed by a bid for Good Article status, then WP:SPORT A-class assessment, and finally Featured Article. It's really rare for an attempt at FA status to succeed if there hasn't been peer review and GA (A-class is less vital, but can't possibly hurt). PS: Do you mind I repost this to WT:CUE and WT:SNOOKER? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. I've got a fair bit of experience over at WP:FAC with football and cricket articles so I know the deal (I'm now on 17 featured articles/lists).  I'm seriously going to suggest we avoid a GA - that could take months with the current backlog.  I think with my FAC experience and your cue knowledge we can go PR then FA.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Repost away, the more the merrier! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me then! —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well Steve Davis seems like a good place to start! I'll get going on manual of style issues and start adding/refactoring sections.  I'll also probably add a bunch of cn templates - we'll need to be watertight on references for FAC to succeed.  Let's kick it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Stanton, do you wish to comment on the SD talk page re what I've written there? bigpad (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go check it out. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoption
13:04, 12 February 2008

Hello! I would like to be adopted by you. I am new at Wikipedia but I aim to be a strong contributor. I am interested in creating a Wiki Project regarding water resources management and irrigation in Latin America countries and would love to have some assistance with editing, fighting vandalism, as well as learning more the specfics of Wikipedia life. Please check irrigation in Peru. Thank you very much.

--anunuezsanchez