en User talk:Ilikeeatingwaffles Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ilikeeatingwaffles. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bealings pages and Fact template

Hi. I've added references to the Little Bealings site, and deleted the fact template markers. However, I do think you're being a little over-zealous in adding these requests for citation. If you check Wikipedia:Citing sources you'll see that it gives 5 examples of where sources should be cited:

3.1 When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged

3.2 When quoting someone

3.3 When adding material to the biography of a living person

3.4 When checking content added by others

3.5 When uploading an image

None of these apply in the case of the population of Little Bealings. These kind of facts (where someone simply knows it's correct) appear on wikipedia all the time. See for example Wikipedia. It says "Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia." Can that be proven? Do we have a citation to prove it? No in either case. We assume that, unless someone challenges it, that it's accurate and was information by someone who knows what they're talking about. In the case of Little Bealings, I do, because I live near there and I'm secretary of the PArish Plan, which uses information of this sort.

Please do not add citation required tags unless one of the 5 criteria above is true. Thanks. --Phil Holmes (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't 3.4 apply? Maybe I am being over-zealous, it's probably a habit picked up from my academic background where pretty much everything has to be referenced. Dancarney (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly - but the guidance says "You can also add sources for material you did not write. Adding citations is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia". The implication here is that if you can corroborate material already added by another person by adding a citation yourself, then this is a Good Thing. There's no implication that you have to request a citation when you read a non-referenced fact.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I think that 3.1 applies to the following you've de-tagged from Great Bealings "...a hump back bridge which is sufficiently "humped" to be the cause of accidents to people trying to drive over it too fast." I think a relevant authority may be likely to dispute this. Without a reference it comes across as a POV grumble. Dancarney (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a case in the late 80s early 90s when someone decided it was a good place to get some "action" shots of his car (an Escort RS2000) and drove over the bridge fast enough to take off. His mate took photos of him in mid-air, which were subsequently used in the dangerous driving court case. He'd failed to land without hitting an electricity pole, writing the car off, IIRC. His mate was charged with aiding and abetting. However, it was before this sort of reporting was on the web, so it's just my memory. It's certainly not intended to be a grumble - more an interesting feature of the area.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox UK place

Not sure if it's because you didn't notice, or that you have a different browser, but when you added the infobox to East Bergholt, the article text only started at the bottom of the infobox because of the right-alignment of the Constable picture (like this). I've moved the constable painting to lower down so now the whitespace has disappeared.

Anyway, aside from letting you know, I wondered if you might know how to fix it. Putting pictures immediately below the template doesn't seem to work with Infobox UK place (I had to fix Lavenham too in the past for the same reason), but it is a useful thing to do. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this as it's not a problem in Firefox. I have no idea how this would be fixed other than by moving the picture or changing its alignment. A separate problem I've experienced is that the use of a Gallery near to an infobox causes a right mess if your browser window is too small, with the pictures going over the top of the infobox. Have a look at Little Bealings for an example. Any ideas about that? Dancarney (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My browser just moves the pictures to beneath the infobox, with a massive amount of whitespace after the heading. Even if the proper gallery arrangement is used, it still does the same thing. I've tried to fix it using a square gallery. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Norfolk article

Hi, you've suggested that a citation is needed for the assertion that the Shoreline Management Plan hasn't been adopted by the local authorities, but the evidence is within the web page at reference No. 6. I thought that adding 2 links to the same web page in one sentence would be overkill. Proclaimer (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the citation to the end of the sentence where it makes more sense. Dancarney (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks :) Proclaimer (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Duncan Ferguson (footballer) incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Duncan Ferguson (footballer) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AFC Sudbury - highest score?

Hi. Just had a quick look at Tony Kempsters site, and it seems the Suds beat Harwich & Parkeston 10-0 away in 2002-03 in the Eastern Counties Premier - that looks like their biggest win so far. Their biggest defeat appears to 2-6 at home to Lowestoft in 2001-02, or 1-5 away to Histon in 1999-2000 and again against Wroxham in the 2003-04 season. Hope this helps! Bettia ^(talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Lionel Pérez. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lionel Pérez

You said it yourself, the statement is potentially libelous. Without a relibale source already in place, the statement cannot remain. I hope you understand. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you remove the statement then? Dancarney (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad. You were just trying to reword the statement... Consider my warning null and void then. Thanks for the heads up. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Farsley Celtic

Thanks for your message - I'll add some references for the new players. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Greece kit image

I've re-done both of Greece's kits. Just waiting for the ones hosted here to be deleted so that the ones I uploaded to the Commons will display. – Pee Jay 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also done a ton of other countries' kits, including the Netherlands, Brazil and South Korea. Now I'm doing Montenegro's as their kits are foul. – Pee Jay 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice job! Fancy having a look at England away? Dancarney (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, along with the England home too. Were there any others you changed that I can have a go at? I'm rather enjoying this chance to flex my Photoshop biceps. – Pee Jay 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the 92 English league clubs and couldn't find any major problems. I'm not totally happy about 4 home kits - Aldershot, Macclesfield, Liverpool and Man Utd - but I might be against the general consensus on at least 2 of them. Some clubs have some weird ideas about what constitutes a decent strip, though - Sheffield United away is lime green! Dancarney (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Those four look fine to me (except for the fact that Aldershot and Macclesfield's have been really badly done). As long as they don't have the club logo or sponsor logo on them, I'm happy. – Pee Jay 09:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaka12o

I have escalted the warning, next step will be to block the user if they continue their disruptive edits. Paul Bradbury 11:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Block requested here Paul Bradbury 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Transfers 2008

Please do not remove the transfers sections yet. Clubs from England and Germany are much more advanced and have separate article about the transfer seasons. Ukrainian football is not that advance and does not have that many contributors. I was thinking of making a separate article, but it takes a lot of time. It would be nice if you could help and create a separate article such as List of German football transfers summer 2008 and then you can remove the transfers from the clubs to the separate article. Until such an article is created, do not take the transfers off so all the information won't be lost. Thanks. --Shustfan (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Grimsby Town F.C. =

Please do not remove the "Notable Former Players" section, this section is currently being refreshed, improved and re-done by myself and others with new sources, players, sub sections etc. I would appreciate it if you did not delete my work in future, and any queries you need answering, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Footballgy (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the section, I merely ensured that it only contained players whose notability was established. I then ensured that the section was properly referenced. You've reverted it to an unreferenced form with no assertions of notability. I'd love to see the reasoning behind Darren Wrack being a notable Grimsby player. Dancarney (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Darren Wrack,notable stalwart in the lower divisions. A well known central midfielder,born and bred in Grimsby,was once quoted saying "i would walk on hot coal to play for Grimsby" . If you are a Grimsby Town supporter, this player easily qualifies as a notable player, if not for his comment, then for the fact that he is a well known lower league midfielder. In my eyes all players on that original list qualify to be a notable player--Footballgy (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

Ones own eyes are not relevant, proof is. You need to find a suitable source that establishes which players are notable as being Grimsby players otherwise it is original research. An excellent example may be found at Everton F.C. where the list used is one of "Everton Giants", as determined by a panel appointed by the club rather than a Wikipedia editor. According to his article Darren Wrack played 13 games for Grimsby and I suspect that he was not able to make a crucial impact on the club's history in such a short career at the club. Dancarney (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand yes, but lets use for instance a player such as Keith Gillespie when at Manchester United or Niall Quinn when at Arsenal. The players never really made a reaction or headlines while at them clubs, but they went on to be more famous and noted for playing for other clubs. Another player like that is Paul Harsley. I don't think he made a single appearance for Grimsby, but yet he will be a noted player because of his exploits elsewhere. This is not "Ones own eyes" its general and common knowledge really. Hence another player, Jake Sagare played one game, but yet to the Town fans was known as "that yank" throughout that season and was a notable player if you understand where I am trying to come from. --Footballgy (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, "common knowledge" is not suitable, you need citable sources to confer notability. Secondly, your examples of Keith Gillespie and Niall Quinn are very poor as neither is featured as a "notable player" on the Man U or Arsenal pages respectively. If you look at the relevant section of the football club manual of style you will find the following

(Noted players of the club, who have had a major impact on the club's history. The section should use external sources for the list, not the personal opinions of editors.)

So, the player must have made a significant impact on the club in question. Jake Sagare must therefore be ineligible for inclusion on the Grimsby page. Note that Wayne Rooney, Paul Gascoigne and David Ginola are not listed as notable players on the Everton F.C. page as their impact was found elsewhere.Dancarney (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Histon/Cambridge United rivalry

Hi. You may want to take a look at Talk:Histon F.C.#Cambridge United rivalry. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yakubu

What's up my friend. Yakubu's last name "Aiyegbeni" isn't really mentioned, so that's why I ereased the last name. Michael 11:50pm Pacific time, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In his profile on the Everton website he is listed as "Yakubu Ayegbeni", which is why I reinstated him as such. Dancarney (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When leaving warnings...

please make sure you sign them using four tildes (~~~~), cheers! BanRay 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Dancarney (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

C.S. Marítimo

Dear Dan, why did you erased the section "Young squads"? [1] Your edit doesn't seems to be helpful. Was there any discussion about this? Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it is totally unnecessary for a senior club's article. Please look at a Featured Article such as Arsenal F.C., where you will see that the youth team is not listed. Arsenal F.C. Academy (the youth team) does have it's own article, but players are not listed as this is not deemed to be relevant.Dancarney (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi - you performed a cut-and-paste move at RewirpowerSTADION which I've restored. In future when moving pages please use the move tab at the top of the page; WP:MOVE gives all the details and is well worth a read. In this case, the proposal should have gone through the requested move process anyway, as there is no uniform rule for sponsored names. I've commented at Talk:KitKat Crescent - feel free to ask any further questions there. All the best, Knepflerle (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Not sure why I didn't use the move tab. What a div. I think I had a mood about the use of sponsored names, which I always find really annoying, and just went for it. Dancarney (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Knepflerle (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of external links

Dear 'Dancarney,'

I have been informed that you have expressed concern about external links that have been added to Wikipedia pages from the Patrons and Performances Web Site <http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed>. This research resource has been created by the internationally-renowned scholarly project based at the University of Toronto, Canada, the Records of Early English Drama (REED). The Wikipedia entry url for REED is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_of_Early_English_Drama. The data on the web site draws on materials published in the REED collections and includes information on events concerning patronized performers, their patrons, and performance venues. Much of the research on the web site is in addition to the material in the published REED collections. Both the REED collection and the web site are unique resources, containing information not available elsewhere. We have been linking our information on patrons and performance venues to the relevant Wikipedia pages.

I have read Wikipedia's guidelines on external links and our linking falls within the acceptable uses for external links. You do not seem to have made any discernible effort to either cite the guidelines supposedly being violated ('Jxa84' merely says they 'appear to breech our guidelines') nor did you bother to ascertain whether these links had a valid purpose. You refer to "this Patrons and Performances website," suggesting you did not bother to look at the web site itself and determine its significance. You simply observed the quantity of links being added over a short period of time and then concluded tout court that something was wrong. You also said you wanted to discuss the matter, then arbitrary removed the links without discussion.

We have been linking the web site to relevant Wikipedia pages in order to provide users with new research on patrons and performance venues. I cannot fathom what possible reason Wikipedia can have against us enriching its entries in this way. Is this not the purpose of Wikipedia?

Sincerely,

Jason Boyd, Ph.D. Managing and Contributing Editor, Patrons and Performances Web Site <http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/> Records of Early English Drama (REED) Victoria University, University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.153.88 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not dispute the quality of the research that your website contains. What I do not understand is how an article on, for instance, Cambridge is enriched by linking to 5 pages contain a small amount of information on Early English Drama? My rationale for removing the links comes from Wikipedia:External links. The guideline what should be linked 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. I am debating the relevance in this instance. I feel that a better way to include your information is to add content to any Culture section of a page and use your site as a source. Dancarney (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of External Links 2

I take your point concerning the example of Cambridge: we have told our webmaster not to link venues, if they do not have individual entries, to entries on cities like Cambridge. However, it make sense to link, for example, a venue like Beetham Hall, which has no individual entry, to the entry on the town of Beetham, since in this case, it is a feature of local interest, and typically such places were the manor houses of the manor to which the town belonged (it also follows the format of the series _The Buildings of England_, which groups descriptions of buildings under the nearest town). But what about the deletion of the links to Wikipedia entries on Appleby Castle, Bampton Castle, Barrington Court, Battle Abbey, etc? These links enable Wikipedia users viewing these entries access to original research on these buildings, including images not to be found elsewhere. Unfortunately, our staff at REED does not have the time to add new sections concerning our researches to every entry we link to, as you have suggested we do (nor does it seem to be necessary). We would not object to other users adding the content you suggest to the entries, but our inability to do so should not disqualify the adding of links to make Wikipedia users aware of the research that is accessible to them on the Patrons and Performances Web Site.

I hope our decision, in the future, to refrain from linking town/city venues that do not have individual entries on Wikipedia to the relevant town/city entries (and these venues are for the most part no longer extant) will satisfy your concerns as to relevance.

Sincerely, Jason Boyd, Records of Early English Drama (REED) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.153.88 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a link at the bottom of the page is meaningless. If you don't have the time to add content don't be surprised if the links just get deleted. The link added for Battle Abbey has it as a "Probable performance venue", I can't see how that's adding much outside the context of a specific citation. Dancarney (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of External Links 3

A link at the bottom of the page is not meaningless. Exactly how is a link to the Patrons and Performances Web Site to the Battle Abbey entry any less "meaningless" than the external links that are there now? Regardless of Battle Abbey's status as a performance venue, the venue entries contain a wealth of detail about the architecture and history of the building itself (including a bibliography), which is of value to readers of the entry whether or not they are interested in the building as a performance venue.

Are you actually saying that you will delete our adding of links because we, a non-profit organization, lack the resources to add new sections to every entry we link to? Is seems to me that there are other problems on Wikipedia to which your attentions might be more profitably directed. It's discouraging to meet with such (I think, misplaced) resistance on this issue, and to be treated as malefactors who are trying to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia when our intent is the very opposite.

Sincerely, Jason Boyd, Records of Early English Drama (REED) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.153.88 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a deeper look at a couple of these entries, and they are indeed very useful sources. Some of the external links for Battle Abbey shouldn't be there and I shall remove them. I would suggest in future either to put a notice on the article's talk page or to bring attention to your project at WP:ENGLAND. Dancarney (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of External Links 4

Thank you for your suggestions regarding the Discussion page and WikiProject England. Can you now undo the deletions of all the external links added by our webmaster? You will understand that our webmaster put a considerable amount of time into adding those links, and he shouldn't have to add them all again if they were wrongly deleted.

Sincerely, Jason Boyd, Records of Early English Drama (REED) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.153.88 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No! He can do it himself! Dancarney (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of External Links 5

I see -- you can cavalierly delete without having bothered to ascertain whether you were justifed in your deletions, and you expect others to redress your error when it turns out your were wrong. As a scholar, I thank you for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better informational resource. You must be very proud of your efforts.

Sincerely, Jason Boyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Boyd (talk • contribs) 00:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As a scholar you should check your facts. I deleted your links from Cambridge, and integrated them as cited sources into Battle Abbey. All other deletions were by other people. Taking 5 min to learn basic wiki markup would help, too. Dancarney (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-inserting silly error

With this change you've re-inserted a false statement - the Cambridge Guided Busway plainly doesn't "pass through St Ives", it ends there. That's on top of messing up several worthwhile other improvements. Couldn't you do something useful instead of pratting around? TomRawlinson (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please read up on Wikipedia's civility policy before leaving rude comments. It's a tricky one this. The Guided Busway as a "system" does pass through St Ives, but it isn't actually guided through the town. I think that you have a point in that my edit doesn't fully reflect this, but it wouldn't be fully informative to state that it terminates at St Ives. What are the "worthwhile improvements" that you feel have been "messed up"? I'm happy to discuss. Dancarney (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking around and noticed another of these strange "The scheme has been heavily criticised by campaigners who believe that the route would be better served by a rail link" at Cambridge. I wondered what non-taxpayer could have put it there and whether it was worth a battle to take it out. I decided against it, someone would only insist it was true and relevant and important. TomRawlinson (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The statements about the criticism that the scheme has received are referenced from third party sources. The Guided Busway has received a lot of criticism in Cambridge so it is correct to reflect this. In time, it will probably be important to note whether the criticism continues or is answered once the busway is running. I don't understand your snidey point about "non-taxpayer"s. Dancarney (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

KJH

Thanks for removing a good portion of unnecessary content from the Huntelaar article. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Dinosaur Jr albums

Sunderland A.F.C.

Sorry about the reversion there, I was only supposed to revert the part saying about the caretaker managers, but he has managed 100 games 42 won and so on, so I'll leave that. I'm going to request semi protection already as its already going mad. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Its just been confirmed, so I'll go ahead and change the manager's section, but I'm sure the vandalism will continue to flow. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ilikeeatingwaffles/Archive 2