This is an archive of past discussions with User:Edwardx. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernando Roig until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Musa Talk 16:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Roig until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Musa Talk 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. But I have had editors turn finicky on these sort of actions...for whatever reason. Therefore, the exaggerated courtesy shown.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, exaggerated courtesy is often the best (or least bad) option. Misunderstandings seem to be rife on here sometimes! Good luck with the review. Edwardx (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a medium of communication that excludes 90% of the cues that pass between people during face to face communication. No wonder it so often goes wrong. On the other hand, nobody has ever been murdered online. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you have the skills to fix this so it can be edited without changing everything? If not I'll do it manually. It does conflict with List of British by net worth as well as being a year out of date and showing British billionaires in dollars. It shouldn't include people like the Hinudjas who aren't British. Doug Weller (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Harrow, Steep until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JAGUAR21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CatcherStormtalk10:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Edward,
About my addition to Graff Diamonds:
I'll tell you why I put in in there. Mr Graff (senior) had this idea back in 1986 and was keen to see it in every store. So it was actually quite an important feature to him. But you are right, needs a citation which will be hard to get.
Wow you really tore that apart! A lot of work! Thanks Robotics1 13:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs)
Thank you Robotics1. You were right, Universal Robots was a bloated mess. It still reads a bit like an ad, but so do many articles about companies. I have had another look at Graff Diamonds, which has suffered from this overly-promotional issue in the past. Alas, I can find nothing to back up your edit, so it will have to remain deleted. But if you can find a source, then the information is there in the article history forever. Edwardx (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
On 23 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Johnson Battersby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ...that James Battersby of Battersby Hats believed that Adolf Hitler was Christ returned despite his father being on the RMS Lusitania when it was torpedoed by a German U-boat? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 23 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battersby Hats, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ...that James Battersby of Battersby Hats believed that Adolf Hitler was Christ returned despite his father being on the RMS Lusitania when it was torpedoed by a German U-boat? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
A Merry Christmas to you. If you have a spare moment, perhaps you can tell us something about this postcard. It's being used to illustrate an article which we're trying to get ready for DYK on Christmas Day so any assistance would be most welcome. Best wishes to you and yours. Andrew D. (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and fine Christmas to you and yours. Nice article. My guess is the postcard is more likely to be some time from 1902 onwards, and no later than about 1910. The UK was the first country to allow "divided back" cards, and that was in 1902. Before that, any message had to be on the front, and there is almost no space for one! I've tweaked the image caption to read "about 1905" Edwardx (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Good deduction, thanks. But what tells you that it wouldn't be later than 1910? The source said "early 1900s". Is there more to it than that? Andrew D. (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
<1910 is guesswork, based on having see many postally used cards. It could be later. Did you know that the inland rate for sending a postcard doubled in 1918 to 1d? Edwardx (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for making Wikipedia A better encyclopedia. Your editing on Christmas Day shows real dedication. Best wishes to you and your family. 7&6=thirteen (☎)11:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |}
Put in its most charitable interpretation, I suppose.
It is unseasonably warm here. No snow. Last year we had already had snow on the ground (and it stayed without let up) from mid-November. It was a hard winter in the Great Lakes. And here in Michigan this season it is just grey and overcast — we have 182 days of overcast each year and we become SAD by February or March.
Hello Edwardx, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016.
Happy editing, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
As you saw, I added a wikilink to the hook. We could link winery, but I was less clear on that. Good article, although it softpedals his litigiousness (although some of that comes with being a magnate). OTOH, somebody like developer Donald Trump has a lot more, given his business practices. 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Hadid does seem a "colourful character". How much to link to in hooks is always going to be a matter of opinion. As for the litigation, as much seems to be ongoing, I thought I'd avoid it, but it could easily be added if someone was so inclined... Edwardx (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I have first hand knowledge of the current ownership of Hesleyside Hall, and it is entirely inaccurate to describe the current managers, Anna and William Charlton as having "inherited", as the owner, Mrs ME Charlton, is still alive and resident at in the House.
Hi! I don't know if you remember me , but I've noticed your name on the edit history. I usually start the grids for Celebrity Mastermind. 2 years ago, I was thanked for creating that year's. Last year, I noticed you and user EpicGenius arguing brilliantly with 2 users, who were trying to meld all the Mastermind pages together. So recently, when another new user started hassling me on the page, I thought I would ask you for your opinion.
A few weeks ago, I started the grid for the current 2015 series and added a source. Everything was going great, until a few days ago, when, a new user named JohnMurphy made sweeping changes to the whole page. He mixed the opening and "Format" paragraphs, fixed up grids and took off sources. I admit some of the changes were warranted, but others I felt were a bit too much, like taking off sources and mixing the paragraphs. Since he was a brand new user, I thought I would revert the massive changes temporarily and sent a message on his talk page. I didn't expect him to revert and attack me, blaming me for the destruction of the page and telling me that he would make certain concessions but that was as far as he would go. I thought that was very rude.
The next day, he was fixing up the grid taking off the source and linking up names that didn't have Wikipedia pages. When Chris Warburton didn't have one, he created a speedy one, saying Warburton was a radio DJ on the BBC and he appeared on Celebrity Mastermind. When another user marked it for deletion, saying that there were no sources, he erased the tag and added the BBC replay of his Mastermind win.
I am sorry to bother you, but I kno that you have edited on this page in the past and have argued for it. I just wanted to get an honest opinion if my concerns are well founded. When this editor made such extensive changes, I was a bit apprehensive , especially with the paragraph merging. I am not saying that all of his edits were wrong, but others I was not positive if they were valid. Then this editor blamed me for being a poor editor and exerted his authority on his first day. It made me a tad angry and makes me question continuing to edit on Wikipedia if I run into editors like him. Would it be possible for you to look into this matter to make sure everything is OK or at least giv me some advice in dealing with Wikipedia users like him. Thanks and Happy New Year!66.130.12.185 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC) samusek2
Alas, you haven't chosen a very memorable username! I've only the vaguest recollection of something from last year - put that down to age and/or too much editing. Will try to have a look later. Edwardx (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again, 66.130.12.185. I have tried to compare the current version with the one before he started to edit. Maybe things have improved since you posted on my talkpage, but the current version looks okay to me. If I'm missing something, please do let me know! I think your message on the talkpage of JohnMurphy64 was fine - polite and constructive. I am also wary of editors who only work on a single topic and seem reluctant to engage in a nice way with others. I should add that I can also be a tad wary of IP address editors and those who don't start a userpage! Edwardx (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone will fix them shortly! I've added a bit to the infobox. As it was only 312 words a few days ago, I think I'll do a 5X expansion DYK. Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw, I've just done my first DYK as you saw. Apparently, I have a backlog of "credits", so I don't need to learn how to assess other articles just yet.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Edward - good to hear from you. I've had a look in the Encyclopaedia of Hove and Portslade and there is a reasonable amount of info in there, which is encouraging. Unfortunately I have limited internet access until Wednesday evening/Thursday, but I will add what I can by Thursday if not before. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)17:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I enjoy collaborating with other content creators - together we build better articles. I won't do the DYK nom until next Monday, 25 January, so you have plenty of time... Edwardx (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi again. I've expanded as far as I can from Middleton (2002). To pre-empt your possible question (!), her original workshop on Davigdor Road, Hove no longer survives. The stretch of Davigdor Road between Holland Road and Montefiore Road (see this map; near top left corner; hopefully the link will work) was lined with small factories and workshops on both sides of the road until around the 1970s. Many were associated with the railway sidings on the north side. Various modern buildings and a retail park have replaced everything except the building on the corner of Montefiore Road and the church opposite. Some of the modern buildings are in turn due to be demolished this year and replaced with high-density flats. I know this area well, as I live less than 10 minutes away :) Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)12:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Great work! Yes, it's the same in my area of London, if it's not listed someone will try to demolish and replace it with "luxury" flats. I'll do the DYK nom in the next day or two. Edwardx (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Enjoyed the interview. I like the infobox choice of "British Mandate of Palestine", which seems preferable to "Mandatory Palestine" (the WP page name), as it sums up the history better, and is maybe a bit less likely to get shortened to "Palestine". Will look at Milchan and art now. Edwardx (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Fulton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Thank you - either here or on the Marianela Núñez talkpage is fine with me. It is standard practice to include divorced spouses in the infobox. Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Brad Pitt might be some famous examples. Núñez and Soares separated in 2014 and divorce news snuck out in January 2016, so my best guess is a 2015 divorce. I tried something vaguer, but the template wants a specific year. Edwardx (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fine Ruskin, no problem. No matter how long one has been editing, there is ALWAYS more to learn! See Template:Infobox person for more about infobox fields. I have no view on the divorce, and don't know either of them personally. Merely recording facts. If you look at the page histories you will see that for some months I removed reports of the divorce from both pages, as we had no reliable source. Edwardx (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
My name is Jennifer Lowe, and I work in communications at eBay.
I'd like to propose an update for the picture of Devin Wenig. We've uploaded to Wiki Commons a newer image of Devin on stage at a recent eBay event in 2015. I've linked to it here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Devin_Wenig.jpg
The existing image features another person who doesn't currently consult for eBay or Devin as stated in the caption. In my opinion, a solo image would better support the content in this article.
Hello, thanks for cleaning up Betfred but could you checkout the references because ref 2 is a list of their shops with a gambling advert(not theirs) ref3 has their gambling advert(click betfred logo) and the external link is to live gambling. Thanks. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
All good points, and hopefully all now sorted. And you're quite right, we need to be vigiliant about these gaming (ha ha) gambling companies. Edwardx (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
