User talk:Loganberry/Archive5

Roll Play

I've edited the entry to be less ad-sounding, how is it now? --Freeleet 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Connolly page

I finished my page on Snow Patrol's Nathan Connolly an hour ago. And when I asked a friend to look at she just saw the 3 sentences that were there before I made a new page with info and pictures and links  :-/ What happens here????????? HELP!!!!!!!!

Siv75 01:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grantly Dick-Read

Thanks for your revisions, much appreciated. I was very nervous as it was my first time! Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinter.martin (talk • contribs)

Thank you!

Hi and thank you for all the help :D I changed my licenses and I guess everything is Ok now.

Siv75 13:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading my entry

Thanks for reading my entry on Conder Tokens. I have added my sources (one book that is the authority on the subject) as well as an external link to a page explaining them in more detail...I also added a photo of a conder Token and may expand my definition.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrusMAX (talk • contribs)

Indigo Renderer

Hi, I wasnt too sure how to state it on the page you provided...could you please check for me if thats how its meant to be? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavTheMushroom (talk • contribs)

Tom Delaney update

Hi there. I thought you might like to know that I've added something at User talk:DTDelaney concerning Tom Delaney, and have updated the article accordingly. I'm am now intrigued as to whether the Delaneys are any relation to the Louis Delaunay who co-founded Delaunay-Belleville... Carcharoth 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this, probably not. Delaunay and Delaney are probably just different spellings, and not immediately related. Thanks for the comment at Talk:Tom Delaney. Carcharoth 23:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declawing

Declawing is also illegal in Germany and Austria.

See Article 6 of the German Animal Welfare Act http://www.animallaw.info/nonus/statutes/stdeawa1998.htm

Also see Austrian Animal Protection Act, Chapter 1 Section 7 http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/erv/erv_2004_1_118.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.14 (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Graeme Wight Jr Update

I've put in another Edit to the Article. The Wights have decided to ditch the V10 and use the Opel V6 in the car so at least they'll have some track time next year. The block itself is still at Judd being rebuilt, it isn't clear yet who might buy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B1ackcr0w (talk • contribs)

Zishan Afsar - Totally agree

From the Google search I did, it would appear that the subject is a current student at Burnham Grammar School, whose article has been going through a lot of vandalism by different IPs and accounts over the last few days. There were two articles in the school paper with that name as the byline. If you look through the history of the article on the school, you'll see that it went from being a pretty straightforward stub to having bits added about "football arena" (I'm guessing that's different from U.S. "arena football"?) and how lousy the school canteen is. I'll give them credit that they at least have some sense of Wikipedian writing style in terms of making less obvious fake material. :) My casual observation of the situation with the school article suggests they're savvy enough you can expect to see your "prod" tag removed within hours, if not minutes, so be ready to propose at AFD. Lawikitejana 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's actually happened is that the prod tag has been left up, but the things I mentioned in it have been deleted from the article! I'm not actually certain how to proceed now: had I come upon the article in its current state originally, then I'd have had little hesitation in nominating it for speedy deletion as "has played for many local sides in the slough area" is not really much of an assertion of notability! However, I'm not sure whether it's acceptable to take down an existing prod template and replace it by a CSD one. Loganberry (Talk) 04:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Told ya they were clever ... but he's still non-notable from all appearances. They claim he's "legendary," but offer no sources to back it up. I'd say that for now, we just leave it there, watch it, and wait for it to get deleted. Lawikitejana 04:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hurrah! It's gone! Lawikitejana 21:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Mulcahy

If I were you, I'd put something up at WP:AN/I. It seems like the best place for this type of thing. Especially since the page shouldn't be at Sir Brendan Mulcahy. Article titles don't normally have the title in them. For instance, Elton John is not listed under Sir Elton John. Dismas|^(talk) 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monifieth High School

Nice work 'slight wikifying' Monifieth High School. I don't know if you looked at the history but the article had a lot of vandalism just before you made the edit. Had to check you weren't a sock puppet.... amitch 12:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article was all true!

My Article About Birr.

I am aware that you may have found some of the things that I wrote irrelevant, but you are not from the Birr area as I am. I have lived in the area my entire life, and I would not have written about anything that I did not think important enough to deserve to be mentioned. I will in the future re-add what I have perviously written in hopes that you will read this and see its significance. I believe the things that you "edited" out of my article were important to the community. I will try to extend what was written to make it more informative, and in turn, more valuable to the encyclopedia.

Sincerely, [real name removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leggia (talk • contribs)

Monifieth High School

The parts on the Monifieth High School page about Mr Anthony Saunders and Mrs Gordon/Miss Coates were all completely true, why the deletion of people's work for no reason??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manby (talk • contribs)

Well, seeing as it now appears you have been blocked indefinitely for vandalism (which is why I'm answering here), I'd have thought it was pretty obvious. But in any case, unsubstantiated personal criticism of living people is not allowed. Jimbo Wales himself has made this precise point: such attacks should be removed, not merely queried, until and unless verifiable sources can be given. Loganberry (Talk) 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call me lacking in good faith, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Stonerface (talk ·  contribs) was Manby (talk ·  contribs) under a new name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not critisising Anthony Saunders, I was complementing him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonerface (talk • contribs)

John Days

There appears to be no lower limit on what counts as "notability" in Wikipedia therefore. It's one huge dumpbin of crap where actual notable knowledge and history is diluted to homeopathic undetectability. The fact that John Days is even mentioned is because he's in Wisden, but then lots of people are - it doesn't make them notable. --81.151.13.200 12:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Wikipedia isn't a dumpbin of crap? Why do both Brad Patrick and Jimbo Wales admit that there is a large amount on non-notable cruft on Wikipedia and urge swifter deletion? Don't they know anything? A description for every minor tributary to a minor river? It's in progress. A station-by-station description of every Japanese railway station? It's in the works. Detailed descriptions of the military capabilities of robot armor in a Japanese cartoon series? Already here. Obscure Scandinavian metal bands that existed for only months and produced one single that went nowhere? Yep.

I did not say that you had written rubbish, merely that the subject wasn't notable for any achievement, and this artificially inflated the significance of trivia compared with stuff that is more important. The devaluation of history is done on Wikipedia by dilution as much as anything else.

I do not withdraw my complaint that John Day is not notable. Copying a few facts out of Wisden and writing them into sentences does not make the subject notable unless there's some measure of achievement. You've failed to say what that achievement is.

I stand by my criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.13.200 (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to AfD the article - it's just one amongst hundreds of thousands of non-notable articles about nobodies. There is no proper editorial control on Wikipedia or impartial enforcement of its own rules. If there was, then "consensus" would not be required.

I repeat that you have not produced a single fact that makes John Day notable, which means you don't care about such things because you're not paying for the bandwidth or the hosting. That's fine by me. But the dilution effect is clearly present.

I've already discovered articles on teams which have yet to play a game, so the article on John Day isn't even bottom of the barrel.

--81.151.13.200 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]