User talk:SovalValtos/Archives/2019/June

Honourable Artillery Company
What are you playing at? You seem to want me to write a duplicate article on Leo Cooper?Blackshod (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I immediately tried to apologise for my mistake Blackshod using a dummy edit, but never having had to do so before, it seems not to have worked. I should have gone to your talk. Sorry.SovalValtos (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Royal Grammar School SLST
Hi there, you removed the statement about the team providing lighting etc for the Jeans4Genes events at the school. Why should the youtube playlist not be a reliable source as the videos quite clearly show the team and the event? MattIPv4 (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RS should provide the information you seek. See also WP:SYNSovalValtos (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read through that page as well as the specific page covering linking videos as references and I believe the playlist linked is a valid source for the section? MattIPv4 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you still disagree with the playlist as a source, could it be used and be supplemented by https://www.rgshw.com/_site/data/files/documents/letters%20to%20parents/school%20comms/1903D12DBC48D52139312411F8544FD4.pdf which makes strong reference to the assembly performance? MattIPv4 (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the article talk page, rather than here, when you have dealt with your COI request.SovalValtos (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * COI has been dealt with previously on the page, I have taken discussion of this issue to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Grammar_School,_High_Wycombe#SLST_-_Jeans4Genes MattIPv4 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cardigan
If as the BBC story implies it's the only bookshop in town, it's hardly unencyclopedic when we are boasting with no reference that there are lots of shops. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the article talk page.SovalValtos (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm not bothered enough about improving coverage of a place you clearly know better, to have rejected a BBC news article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Lots of shops" is not a boast, but a fact; it's a town centre. The article (or the person quoted) was wrong to imply it was the only bookshop in town - there are at least five places selling books in Cardigan. The BBC news article has not been rejected, but the contention was that the edit was unencyclopaedic; I tend to agree.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  16:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir please see WP:BALASP.SovalValtos (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Paid Contributions
You have contacted us at Bishop's Stortford College several times about whether or not our contributions are paid for. I am the Marketing Administrator here, and the Marketing Manager and I make occasional updates etc to the school's Wikipedia content. We are paid employees of the school so in that sense we are paid to update the school's Wikipedia page. We do not personally benefit financially in any way from updating the school's content. I hope I have entered the necessary information correctly on the paid form, but please advise if I need to do more. Thank you. Sarah Gowans (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarah Gowans I do not see the required declaration on your talk page or on Bishop's Stortford College talk . You have been given the links on your own talk page to help you comply. If you are unable to follow that advice you could do well by asking for help at the Teahouse .SovalValtos (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * tried to change the template page. I reverted and left a message on her talk page. Hopefully that helps. Sorry if I'm interfering unnecessarily.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  09:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Jack1985IE (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wallington County Grammar School
Hello, I received your message about a section of the article being poorly referenced - specifically concerning the claim that WCGS is one of a handful of grammar schools in the London Borough of Sutton. I didn't provide a citation there because I'd provided a link to 'list of schools in Sutton' (specifically the section on grammar schools), which vindicated the claim. I felt that should suffice. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions.
 * User:Rabidmelonfarmer Please read the welcome message and the links within it which has been added to your talk page by another editor . You will then find the explanations you seek as to sourcing and citation. Even if using another Wikipedia was allowable as a reliable source (which it is not) there is nothing in the linked list to justify the assertion that it is 'consistently ranked'. Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~ . Best wishes. SovalValtos (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Rabidmelonfarmer I suggest you read WP:CoI and WP:COPYVIO.SovalValtos (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I see. I've now added suitable citations to both claims. Please let me know if you have any further queries. Thank you for your support, I'm still fairly new to the whole business! Rabidmelonfarmer (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * On further inspection, the citations for the article don't seem to be formatted properly, with their being numbered irregularly (the first citations in the article are numbered 3 and 4, though in the visual editor one still sees 1 and 2 in their place). If you would please rectify these errors (or let me know how to do so) I'd be most appreciative. Rabidmelonfarmer (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - I think what you're seeing is not an error in citation numbering; if you click "edit" on a section of the article, the citations for that section are numbered from number 1. This is normal, and doesn't change the numbering across the whole article.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There are some citations in the infobox. Do you have a connection with Wallington County Grammar School which gives you particular insight into the subject? I have not the time or skills to mentor you but strongly advise you follow the advice given above even at the expense of suspending other editing until you have done so.SovalValtos (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If this is still me you're talking to, I do have a connection with the school, having attended it for some time. I've heeded the advice you've provided above, to the extent of providing citations for both of the claims you took issue with previously. I now see an article beginning with citations numbered 3 and 4, however, and don't know how to rectify this. Any help would be appreciated. Rabidmelonfarmer (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that the citations in the lead are assigned numbers 3 and 4 is not a problem. Citations numbered 1 and 2 are contained in the infobox (which precedes the lead sentence). They appear as 1 and 2 when you preview the changes only because the preview doesn't take into account citations appearing in other sections of the article (such as the infobox).  General Ization  Talk  22:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL
Future routes are fine to list in destination tables per WP:CRYSTAL #1 as long as they're properly sourced. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports - I'm reverting your edit based off this discussion. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that there is no mention in that fan project discussion of the Wikipedia policy WP:CRYSTAL. The policy takes precedence. Airlines and their routes come and go frequently, so a text section on the routes over the whole existence of an airport is preferable to a table/travel guide of even just current routes let alone speculating on possible future routes.SovalValtos (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you about the "fan project discussion" considering it's pretty much how every single airport on Wikipedia works, and as I've noted, WP:CRYSTAL allows the practice. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Licking River (Kentucky)
Please be more careful with your reverts. There were other changes in that section and we don't need a clutter of cite needed tags in a short section. If you disagree - take it to the article talk page. Thank you. Vsmith (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Westerham church tower
When I was in the church last year I picked up a sheet where it says "the tower dates from the 1100s" and even "cross over under the arches dating from the 1100s." You are right to revert my edit until I can come up with a reference online. I have written to the church for this.--Brenont (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit - Billingshurst IPA
Can I have a reason as to why my edit containing an IPA pronunciation for Billingshurst was reverted? IPA pronunciations do not require sourcing on wikipedia to my knowledge (where would find such a source come from?) and it is a valid piece of information to have in the article for anyone who is not from Billingshurst or the local area. Seems to me by the looks of this talk page you've been a bit too trigger happy when it comes to reverting edits without bringing it to the article talk page first (even if something that needed a citation was not cited it does not mean it needs a speedy deletion without proper reasoning). TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * TheBestEditorInEngland I am not aware of any exemption from Verifiability for IPA transcriptions. Please link such if it exists. Sources commonly used for citing transcriptions are dictionaries such as Collins English Dictionary or various pronunciation dictionaries.SovalValtos (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, I've luckily found a pronunciation on an online pronunciation site and will add the IPA for the third time with the source. Next time, before removing, could you bring the problem to the article's talk page as I could have sourced the IPA within minutes if you had. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * TheBestEditorInEngland unfortunately your choice of source added does not include the transcription your research has produced for your preferred version. Your bold addition will be reverted until such time as there is a reliable source. Please do not edit war. The place to justify your addition after reversion is on the article talk page rather than here. I trust there will not be any occasion in future for asking you for a source for an IPA as you now say it is possible to find them within minutes rather than not knowing where they might be found, and you could add them prior to posting. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * SovalValtos unfortunately your choice of words added does include too much sass and sarcastic cocky behaviour your previous messages have produced for your preferred message. Your bold message will be ignored until such time as there is not a substantial amount of cringe. Please do not act proper 'ard. The place to justify your message after me reading it is in a court of law rather than here. I trust there will not be any occasion in future for asking the police for assistance in stopping your abusive comments as you now say it is possible to message them within a wiki user talk page rather than on FaceBook or something, and you could not add them prior to posting. Best wishes.TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * - I've no comment on the rights or wrongs of the debate you're having, but please read No legal threats. Making such threats is an absolute no-no on here and can result in a ban. KJP1 (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * KJP1 - I've no comment on the rights or wrongs of the comment you just had, but please read No legal threats. Making such threats about banning people is an absolute no-no on here and can result in a ban. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the editor who started this thread was being antagonistic, uncivil and clearly looking for a fight, was unaware of WP:BRD, then resorted to parody so, as a self-acknowledged novice is best ignored until they have a little more experience on Wikipedia or want to collaborate in a more friendly way.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  17:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the editor who started this thread was asking a clear and civil question, and was clearly looking for an answer, was unaware that they would be met with racial abuse and talk page stalkers, then resorted to being annoyingly sarcastic back to annoyingly sarcastic comments so, as someone who only contributes in large edits and article expansions instead of deliberately looking for mass bad grammar to fix to get a better more respectable medal and look proper 'ard on their user page is best ignored by talk page stalkers until they scour random wiki articles to make not very big edits like changing its to it's 1000 times a day everyday 24/7/365 to get a better medal displayed on their user page (Editcountitis) or want to ask a question in a more friendly way like on FaceBook or something. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)