User talk:Atlas-maker

Hi – thanks for your note from a couple of days ago. I have reworded the lead in light of what you said and the new source you found about the Charlwood Society becoming the new trustees (thanks for finding that; I hadn't uncovered that info). The Society website is probably an adequate source for the time being, so I'll include a line about them as well; I will need to search the archives of the local newspapers to see if the story reached any of them. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 07:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a technicality peculiar to the remaining local authorities who still operate a Grammar school system. Basically, schools that are under local authority control (but are not grammar schools) are secondary modern schools, in that they supposedly take an intake of pupils who did not pass their 11 plus exam and have a curriculum designed for them (and in the case of Kent they call these schools 'High Schools'). However if a school is (or converts to being) an academy or a free school etc, they are technically free to accept a comprehensive intake, including pupils that may have passed their 11 plus. Therefore they are 'non-selective'. Its a strange definition, but one that is rapidly becoming obsolete - Kent is encouraging all of its schools to convert to academy status, so soon enough all non-grammars will be non-selective comps. - Bleaney (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add, most voluntary aided religious schools such as Catholic schools, have always claimed to be 'comprehensive' from the start. There are also some small parts of Kent which are too far away from a grammar school so the local secondary school has historically been regarded as a 'non-selective' school. So historically their was always a division between 'High schools (Secondary Moderns) and non-selective comprehensives. I suppoose this just confuses things further however! Bleaney (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I say I think the distinction is becoming obsolete. I'm about to start an 'academy sweep' in September, and I suspect that most (if not all) High schools in Kent will have converted to academy status by now. - Bleaney (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the contents of Category:Ports_and_harbours_of_England_by_city - it contains pages of the same type. eg Port of London, Port of Liverpool, Port of Southampton etcProf.Haddock (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are nonsense please stop - Port of Hull, Port of Southhampton obviously belong in "Ports by city". Please stop removing them.Prof.Haddock (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly an idiot and fail Wikipedia:Competence is required - what sort of person removes city ports from a category named "Ports by City" because of some footnote left 8 years ago ? And then re-instate the message claiming "consensus"

You clearly don't understand the first thing about categorisation, and have shown that you are incapable of thinking independantly .

I can't believe someone as stupid as you could actually exist. But you've proven it true. Please stop editing.

Idiot. Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard#Problem_with_editor_Special:Contributions.2FAtlas-maker - categories are not mutually exlcusive, there is no consensus for what you are doing, you are misunderstanding the basics of categorisation.Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

quote As you have no doubt noticed, the Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard has been closed (again).

Stop lying - there has be NO close.Prof.Haddock (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all canvassing to ask for assistance from an admin. Maybe you should re-read that, because you don't seem to know what it means. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presume you mean How did I come to the discussion? Very simple really. I have the article in my watch list and I noticed your high handed abuse of WP:BRD. So I went and read the disputed section and couldn't see anything majorly wrong with it other than your opinion that it was somehow wrong. Hardly the stuff of BRD. And with no evidence of you attempting to begin the discussion I decided to revert.

I can confirm that The Master did not canvass me nor have our paths ever crossed on WP to my best knowledge.

Just to confirm that I have read WP:CANVAS and reviewed Mark Arstens contributions and for the life of me cannot see why he would fit any of the 4 user page exceptions allowable under CANVAS. Perhaps you can explain which of them he does fit? Atlas-maker (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to clarify, this was the bold edit and this was the revert. At that point, the onus was on The Master to take this up at talk, not edit war until someone helps him win. I asked Mark for advice, not to !vote in support of my opinion. BTW, I predict that you will end up looking silly; this addition is not one you should be defending. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus goes against my take, I will be delighted that the project has made its considered views known. As you can probably gather I'm not a great fan of WP:BRD. When I have a problem with someone else's edit, I find that I get much better response by asking a direct question either on the contributor's talk or on the article talk. Its much simpler than trying to force choreograph BRD. BTW theres nothing in BRD which would have restricted your ability to start the discussion. Insisting that its someone else's job doesn't sit very well withe collaborative nature of WP. Atlas-maker (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The onus should always be on the one who wants to make the addition or change to persuade, not the one who thinks the material is garbage and it degrades the quality of the article. That's always how it's worked for me. The way you describe it, it's more like every and all additions will be included until someone successfully argues for it's removal, which is the exact opposite of how this project is supposed to work. If I am bold, and you revert, I shouldn't just keep reverting until I get some help. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got your understanding of how this project is supposed to work, because its not one I share and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. For a start, BRD is an essay not a policy or guideline. The way to resolve editing disputes is by consensual editing rather than reverting and hoping that the other players are happy to play your game. There also needs to be some sign of good faith towards other editors and their contributions rather than just reverting them dismissively. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the irony here? On one hand you say that you don't like BRD, but you also demanded that I discuss the reversion. You say that there is nothing stopping me from starting the discussion, but there is also nothing that requires me to, essay or otherwise. Why do you think that you can tell people how to edit? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling you how to edit. I'm explaining how I see it. You can do what ever you like. Atlas-maker (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now it's three editors against inclusion, and only you supporting. What do you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we wait and see what consensus turns up. Don't forget Mark has said he's neutral. And your original protagonist hasn't even made his own case yet. Patience. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a way in which hard-working good-faith editors are made to waste their precious time defending their highly vetted articles from the inclusion of nonsense and bad writing. Are you aware that the cited source does not say that the Floyd's played the tape to Laing? Why are you so staunchly defending the inclusion of this garbage? Is this personal against me? That datum would never make it through FAC, but what would I know about that, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why is your time more precious than mine? Atlas-maker (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't and I never said that it was. What I meant was that you seem to have decided to defend a garbage edit for the sake of principle, which is self-indulgent, IMO. Had you respected that I just might know my stuff regarding Floyd, you might have assumed that I was correct to revert, and we would have all saved some time, or spent it actually improving an article. If every single edit was the subject of this intense scrutiny nothing would ever get done around here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I respect your 'expertise' on Floyd, when you don't seem to know your stuff about WP procedures and processes? Atlas-maker (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping you going off and improving any article you like. Nothing except your need to 'defend' yourself against some imaginary slight I seem to committed against your reputation. Atlas-maker (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now there are five editors against inclusion. Are you still supporting, or is the discussion currently unanimously in my favour? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are we voting on you now? Atlas-maker (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No we aren't voting; the editors stated their position, and as it stands now, nobody disagrees with me and EVERYONE disagrees with you. Also, This edit makes me think that you do not even own the cited source in question, or at least you did not bother to check it before reverting me. How can you revert based on your opinion that the edit was good when you did not even check the accuracy against the cited source? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that I didn't check the source in question before I reverted you. Did you check it? Because if you did and then you didn't inform the community that the quote did not reflect what was in the source, then I'd call that disruptive editing. You would have been in a position to avoid any disruption by saying "That's not what he said". When I came to he party, the accuracy of the source had not been disputed, had it. That's why I accepted at face value The Masters contribution. If anyone, including you, had objected on the grounds of accuracy, then I probably would have been persuaded. But you didn't do that, did you? And whether or not I own a copy is entirely irrelevant. If I don't own one, what would change? Would the citation be more correct or less? Hint: the correct answer is neither. Atlas-maker (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point here is that I don't think you should ever restore a reverted edit to a FA unless you can first confirm that the edit is accurate to the cited source. I would never stick my nose in a content dispute and take sides unless I had first checked the source for accuracy. I think that is basic common sense. Which brings me to this edit. Why did you revert based on a lack of sourcing when NONE of the listed alum are sourced in-line? Why didn't you discuss this at talk, as you said I should? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I don't share it. It's not written into any guidance or policy, is it? Atlas-maker (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bottom line: your reversion restored original research that introduced a factual inaccuracy. The cited source does not say that the Floyd's played Laing a tape of Barrett, it says that someone did. Do you really dislike BRD to the point where factual inaccuracies should be defended and retained in a FA? The only reason the edit and error remain is because you had a numerical majority supporting the mistake. Per WP:VERIFY: "Wikipedia does not publish original research", but that is exactly what you have defended and in fact it only remains because of your need to defend your ego. You made a mistake, but can you show the maturity to make it right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside, you should use a colon to provide indents on talk pages, rather than the asterisk. As I said above if anyone had claimed a factual inaccuracy, I would have listened. But nobody did, including you. The current article version may possibly be incorrect. But guess what? Nobody will die as a result. It's an article about a former rock band on Wikipedia. It really doesn't really matter if for a couple of days it contains a slightly erroneous sentence. And I don't think my ego is the one being questioned. As I said at the outset if the community consensus is to remove or change the disputed content, I'm happy with that the communities will is exercised. What I'm not that keen on is that you or anyone else should try to exercise ownership over a particular version of any article without explaining their rationale. Which you've done now. Well done. Atlas-maker (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the accusations of ownership already; even if I wasn't the lead contributor to the article I would have done the exact same thing. I was absolutely correct to revert, and you were absolutely wrong to revert me to make a point. Nonetheless, I am not at all afraid of personal growth, and will attempt to apply the lesson I learned here moving forward. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want me to stop withe accusations of ownership? You don't seem to deny them, in fact you seem to confirm them. I'm glad you agree that I had a point. Atlas-maker (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas-maker: I've been concerned about that Pink Floyd page for a while... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Friginator#Pink_Floyd_Talk--Ikeepwatching (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "The reason the bullets need to stay is that the template Template:Infobox musical artist#past_members says "Separate multiple entries using * list markup. ". Atlas-maker (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)"

See also: Help:List#Streamlined style or horizontal style, which states:

It is also possible to present short lists using very basic formatting, such as:

''Title of list:'' example 1, example 2, example 3

Title of list: example 1, example 2, example 3

This style requires less space on the page, and is preferred if there are only a few entries in the list, it can be read easily, and a direct edit point is not required. The list items should start with a lowercase letter unless they are proper nouns.

• So, I've reverted you based on the fact that your preferred style is not at all required by this guideline, which you have misrepresented in your edit summary. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am redoing the edit that you reverted, here, because this is entirely proper information, see MOS:LIST. The difference between categories and lists is that the latter contains additional information. Plainly the formatting of the additional information could do with improvement and similar information needs to be added to the other schools but that is not a basis for removing what is there. If you are still concerned please take matters to: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Synge Street CBS shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I am especially disturbed that you have deleted repeated warnings from your talk page, warnings which were proper. You must provide a source for disputed content. You have also violated BRD. That's edit warring. Such battlefield behavior will not be tolerated. Either become a collaborative editor and work by consensus and compromise, or leave Wikipedia. It's that simple. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You provide some pretty good evidence that you are deliberately flaunting policy, or are too incompetent to understand it, because you quote it and then ignore it. This thread is a great example: Talk:Ecuador#Restoration of uncited material.

If you are incompetent, then you shouldn't be editing here. If you understand policy and won't follow it, then you should be blocked/banned. Your behavior is classic battlefield behavior.

If an editor deletes content because it is unsourced, THAT is a challenge, and the content must not be restored without a citation. An edit summary is a good enough explanation. You are not allowed to restore that content. Per BRD you must then discuss the matter on the talk page and reach a consensus decision about it. No form of edit warring is justified, especially in such a situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Synge Street CBS. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've increased your block to a week from now for block evasion with the following IPs: 46.208.91.60 (talk · contribs · count), 87.115.9.199 (talk · contribs · count), and 31.185.132.32 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gatwick Diamond has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Filled with advertorial content that predates 2014 and appears to fail WP:GEOLAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]