User talk:Trappedinburnley/Archives/2014

Do not threaten me

 * I understand what weasel words are perfectly fine. Please note that any attempts to stalk and harass me will be reported. LokiiT (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @LokiiT I didn't threaten you, I warned you. As you've removed my message (as you do with most of the fairly large number of critical ones) I don't think you need to worry about it. With your repeated attempts to remove perfectly valid (all be it negative) content at RT (TV network),   by invoking a bunch of regulations that it isn't actually contravening, suggests bias on your part.  Given all your recent edits seem to relate to the Ukraine crisis, I feel it appropriate that someone scrutinises your work more closely. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram, why not try to find some sources at RT that rebut the criticism? In an attempt to be reasonable I tried myself, however all I could find makes them sound like the conspiracy theorist nut-jobs that they're so fond of giving airtime to.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Queen Street Mill editathon
We're running another editathon (full details here), at Queen Street Mill in Burnley, England, on 10 May. Hope you can make it! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy is Wikipedian in residence here and has put together this little event. It will be incredible useful to meet up with the LCC museum service and talk face to face on what we need to do to improve the weaving shed coverage. I am coming specially. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * When I promised Andy that I'd come to the next one I didn't actually think that would be happening! :) I'll get myself signed up, although I'm feeling slightly paranoid about my anonymity at the mo. Any Ideas? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A reminder; this event is on Saturday. I look forward to seeing you (both!) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See you both in the morning! --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Pendle Hill panorama
Thanks for your recent edit of Pendle Hill - the panorama looks great! I'd wanted to make it larger somehow but wasn't sure how. And thanks also for correcting the file page. Don't worry, I wasn't lost on the day! I must have just got lost on Google Maps when I was filling out the file description. Having looked again, I think I was on Wheathead Lane (53°52'24"N 2°15'W). Regards,  nagual  design   02:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You’re welcome, it’s been bugging me for a while that all the images in the article were from the Clitheroe side. One of the great things about Wikipedia is how easy it is to fix mistakes you might stumble across. I’m not actually sure how to add coordinates to WP uploads so we’ll have to try to remember to add them when the image gets moved to commons site.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea.  nagual  design   20:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (TPS) What a stunning image. A magnificent addition. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's actually a cropped/scaled down version of the original image, which was just a technical exercise to see if I could make an 8ft×4ft (180dpi) print with lots of sky. (Large thumbnail) I've yet to go back there when the light is better and the weather is more interesting to take a proper photo that's worth selling.  nagual  design   22:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC) ..PS. What does TPS mean?


 * Talk page stalker - it becomes a more-or-less full time occupation for some of us, sob. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I see.   nagual  design   19:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has any suggestions for other local scenes to photograph, or knows any good vantage points to take a decent panorama, feel free to drop a message on my talk page.  nagual  design   02:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Possible Russian influence"
Please (re)read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of both policies, please explain how you feel I've breached them with this edit --Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Possible Russian influence", the section heading, implies that the SNP is under the influence (whatever that means) of Russia. The section supports this conclusion with a synthesis of various items. One of these is that various SNP figures giving interviews to RT. So what? I'm sure they have given lots of interviews to different news networks. Another is the Salmond quotes about Putin, the meaning of which is disputed by Salmond. It could be pointed out in this context that Nigel Farage, who opposes Scottish independence, expressed much less qualified admiration of Putin. The section also posits claims by a blogger and Michael Gove that Russia would welcome Scottish independence, but this is contradictory to the publicly expressed sentiments of Putin. I'm sorry, but I think you are creating original research by pulling together unconnected thoughts and events. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view RT only puts people on air with views that are beneficial to the Russian Government. An interview could be put down to not realizing they were talking to Putin TV, it is still not that widely known after all. But all of them? To me that is suspicious as hell. Funny you should mention Farage, he’s on RT with great regularity. I expect his views on the EU are more important to Putin than those on Scotland. As far as I’m aware Putin’s sentiments, although widely interpreted as pro union he didn’t mention the possible effects on Russia in any way. I’m fairly confident that the reason both Salmond and Farage where asked about Putin was a suspicion that they have been receiving support from Russia and would have to say something positive. As is already covered in the article issues relating to Faslane are important to the debate, it doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to see that the Russian government would have a motive here. I’m not sure a section heading qualifies as a conclusion, but I’m willing to change it. If you feel that the wording implies a connection that the sources don’t I’m willing to change it. If you feel a different section of the article would be more appropriate I'm willing to look at that.However I’m not willing to give up and go away, there will be another attempt once I’ve reviewed more sources.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As you say, "in my view". My view and your view is irrelevant. It is what is said in the reliable sources that matters. Unless you can produce a reliable source that says that Russia is influencing the debate, there should not be a "Russian influence" section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)