User talk:Swearword&ethanol

London Underground anagram map
I appreciate that you've put a lot of work in on that one article, but there's a lot of very trivial detail that isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia (a mention of someone's blog entry about the map and how they live near Pudding Mill Lane?), the boldfacing of the names of people and sites doesn't match Wikipedia's general style, and there's no need for most of the links at the end of the article. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the cleanup edits I made rather than simply reverting all of them? --McGeddon 13:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

my reply
Okay, I was under the impression that when things are initally mentioned that don't warrant a wiki entry then they are made bold. I'll remove these as I agree they are intrusive but thought it was the proper format. But you also removed a lot of important information; the map was featured in blogs. Thousands of them. And you removed the blogging section completely and any reference to it appearing in blogs. 21,000 people blogging the BoingBoing article is important for something that exists solely on the internet. You also removed it's origin: a thread on Thingbox. This thread gives an insight to how and why it was made and Torchwood's responses to its blogging exposure and legal repurcussions. (If anybody wanted to learn more about the map). The blogging aspect is important; it did inspire people; when it was featured on BoingBoing there was a spate of copycat anagram maps by people wanting to do their metro system. Coffeelover's blog was the first to mention it which is why I included it. Wikipedia isn't a paper dictionary so an extra contextual sentence about Luminal Peddling/Pudding Mill Lane doesn't seem that indulgent. You also removed a lot of hyperlinks; which I thought saved people doing websearches for what was mentioned (like other metro anagrams). I did remove Torchwood's reason for making it as it seemed a little... precious? But included it originally because it referenced Simon Patterson's The Great Bear and Dorian Lynskey's musical version.


 * I don't know where you got the boldface idea from, but the italics you've replaced them with seem equally intrusive - you might want to browse Wikipedia a bit, perhaps looking at articles for comparable Internet memes or the Wikipedia style guide, to get a feel for how these things tend to be written up.
 * The blogging section seemed redundant when the article already talks about the map being an internet phenomenon - every web-page internet phenomenon gets mentioned in a lot of blogs, and the two cited examples of "first to mention it" and "someone wrote to Neil Gaiman about it" don't seem particularly interesting. (Again, all internet memes will have been blogged by someone first, it usually doesn't matter who.) It's perhaps relevant that BoingBoing linked to it and caused the boost in traffic, but we don't need to say any more than that.
 * A fair point about the map links - do you know if there's a single page you can link to that gathers all these together? There's really no need to link to Cafepress and BoingBoing simply because they've been mentioned in the article, though - it makes more sense to wikilink those mentions, as the articles for Cafepress and BoingBoing will have links to the sites.
 * I'm not sure there's any need to include the legal details in the article - we should certainly mention that Transport For London's reaction, and the possible Fair Use issues, but the name of the solicitor who wrote the letter seems irrelevant, and the entire text of her email doesn't really add anything to the fact that TFL wanted the image taken down.
 * Good to see you having such enthusiasm for research, though. I hope you enjoy your time at Wikipedia. --McGeddon 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at WP:External links ("adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers") and WP:Citing sources (although it might just be easier to look at a page like All Your Base and see how that's done its reference citing). --McGeddon 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing tips
Not really sure why you're making so many edits to the same page, but in case you've overlooked either of the following - if you click "Edit this page" at the top of an article, you can edit the whole thing in one go, rather than section by section. And there's also a "Show preview" button next to "Save page", at the bottom of the edit window - this will show you how your edits will look, if you want to see how something turns out on the screen. --McGeddon 15:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting London Underground anagram map
I understand you seem to have a lot of personal enthuasiasm for this page, but it is not helpful for you to revert without comment every single change that other Wikipedia users attempt to make to the content. As the edit page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." - Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia, not your own personal home page. If you want to write about the minutiae of which server hosted the site and for how many days, or exactly what a lawyer said in an email, then you should set up a weblog or your own web site and write as many pages as you wish.

Please only revert sections of edits which you strongly feel are relevant to an encyclopaedia. If you're having trouble with the edit interface and are reverting because you don't know how to do anything else, feel free to ask for guidance. I'd like to see this article become a coherent and well-written one, but if you continually revert it to include irrelevant details, it's likely to end up being deleted. --McGeddon 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

my reply
As the edit page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Yes, this line could easily apply to your own edits too though?


 * Absolutely! I'd be more than happy to see my contributions to the page "edited mercilessly" if anyone felt that they could improve the article, or that I'd included unencyclopaedic or inappropriate content. So long as there's some rationale or regulation behind it, it's fine. The reason I'm making edits here is because I want it to be a better Wikipedia article, where "better" is defined by existing Wikipedia guidelines and precedents - if there's genuine disagreement, I'd bow to it, but your unwillingness to discuss any of the individual issues makes it rather hard to know what to say. --McGeddon 17:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --McGeddon 09:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mommy, hold my hand.

Okay, fair call on the Thingbox link with it being a site needing subscription.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)