User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 14

I think I may have inadvertantly reverted an edit of yours on the First Balkan War page. I was reworking the background and couldn't see your changes during the "edit conflict" page I got so I went for my version. If I have screwed you up I'm sorry. Grible (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Would you be kind enough to take a look and give feedbacks about a text I'd like to include (even rephrase it if you wish)? Thanks... --HawkFest (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't aware, I responded to the query you left on my talk page re: an edit I made to the article, John C. Turmel. My post is here. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was glad to see you dont support this pesky guideline. I have it on my watchlist, hopefully one day the time will come when it can be downgraded to an essay, or even deleted entirely! :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GZ,

I noticed you made a small edit to Johannes Agnoli. I wonder if you might just offer a quick opinion at Talk:Johannes Agnoli#Sections? Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise why all updates to the Roberts article were reverted. All references are relevant, verifiable and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmore21 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive criticism ! I shall take on board your suggestions.

Kind Regards, (Jack1755 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there. I had changed the apostrophe placement in "Private Members' Bill" as this is the correct syntax. Refer to the Parliament of Canada website - [1]

Thanks and have a great day! Cmslothouber (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Not quite correct though. The link you posted show a list of private members' public bills, i.e., public bills sponsored by private members. In the singular, though, it is a "private member's bill", because it is sponsored by one private member. See the parliamentary glossary here. Also, the Wikipedia article is found at Private member's bill. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me learn something today. :) Have a good weekend. Cmslothouber (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I love about Wikipedia. I learn something new every time I visit. you have a good weekend too. Ground Zero | t 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, see here for context. I'm all for not discussing this, but it strikes me that if people want to add it, we need somewhere to explain why they shouldn't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't simply remove sections of a talk page because you don't like the subject. The Talk page is where this should be discussed. Nfitz (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:BLP:

"Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached."

I believe that the discussion about Baird that I deleted met this standard. Ground Zero | t 10:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how it does. A major publication wrote an article that mentioned Baird was gay; it then put up a version on the Internet that didn't mention that. The discussion is simply making decisions on the articles contents based on this; it's neither unsourced or poorly sourced. I don't see how the content is problematic, and certainly not libel! Nfitz (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That major publication is no longer willing to stand behind that statement -- it has chosen not to repeat it on its website. THat raises serious doubts about the reliability of the the source. Wikipedia is not here to out anyone.Please accept the views of the other four registered editors who have participated in this discussion, three of whom have been around long enough and have become respected well enough to become administrators. Ground Zero | t 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure who you're forgetting, but all four of us are admins (Disembrangler is a disclosed sock of User:Rd232). Not that being an admin gives you any particular privilege in these things, mind you. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why mention it? Nfitz (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you talking to me? I mentioned it because I noticed that Ground Zero had made a minor factual error, and I'm chronically incapable of leaving minor factual errors uncorrected. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I am quite glad to have my errors pointed out to me. It's how I learn best. Thanks, Steve. Ground Zero | t 05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GroundZero! I have been working on a wikientry that started as stub and that I have been fleshing out to an article and recently discovered that it is included in two hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements and Articles with unsourced statements from May 2009.

After the work that I have done, I do not believe that either of these apply any more and I would like to remove these categories from the article. While they are not hidden from view when I look at the bottom of the article, they disappear when I go in to edit the article. How do I remove these hidden categories? I have consulted WP:Hidden category and Template:Hidden category to no avail. Thanks for any help you can give me!

— SpikeToronto (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this area of Wikipedia, but I suspect that those categories are popping up because of the "citation needed" tag that someone has applied to this statement in the lead paragraph: "The company ceased operation in the 1980s." I think if you were to provide a source for that, and remove the "cn" tag, the article would fall out of the hidden categories. I hope that helps. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GroundZero. Two follow-ups for you: (1) I have dealt with these FACT tags — which I had originally placed in the article to remind me what remained unsourced — as now discussed in the article’s talk page. Would you mind advising me as to whether this is correct and, if not, how best to proceed? (2) You removed some boldface from the article and cited in the edit summary something that ended up redlinked: WP:MOPS. I guess this was probably a typographical error; so, would you mind directing me to what you meant it to be? Thanks! SpikeToronto (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This presents something of a dilemma: on the one hand, you really shouldn't remove a fact tag unless you are able to provide the citation, and not being able to find a suitable citation is not really a very good reason for removing the tag; on the other hand, you put it there in the first place, so it is unlikely that anyone will complain. Fact tags are usually used by people who are questioning a statement, or identifying a key or contentious statement for which a citation is really needed. I think the answer is that it is unlikely that anyone will complain about you removing the tags that you removed, so I would leave it at that.

(2) What I should have typed was WP:MOSBOLD, which says (in part):

"Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses: Table headers, Definition lists, Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats"

Regards, Ground Zero | t 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your assistance! As always, you are a font of wisdom!! I still have some work to do on the article — some new information to add, some redundancy to remove, etc. Perhaps, when it’s a tighter composition, you might advise how to elevate it to good article status … SpikeToronto (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were right! The hidden categories have disappeared!! I am content … Thanks a million! SpikeToronto (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, took a bit of digging to find out which was which. Dodge rambler (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening Ground Zero, I have noticed your latest edit to Louis XVIII. Could you please elaborate on why you think "rightful place" was belligerent? By the laws of Royaume de France, Louis XVIII was rightfully King since 1795, and the Charter of 1814 does not recognise the legitimacy of the republic or Bonaparte. King Louis signed the Charter of 1814 as "Given at Paris, in the year of grace 1814 and of our reign the nineteenth, Louis R." Note the "of our reign the nineteenth". Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I didn't say "belligerent", but "not neutral". AThe article, as written, stated that Louis XVIII's rightful place was on the throne of France - it did not qualify that statement by reference to the Charter of 1814. It would thus be read as a general statement, i.e., that it was Louis's right to rule France, which republicans would contest on the basis that monarchy is an abomination, or which Bonapartists would contest on the basis that the Bourbons had given up their right to rule by failing to be good rulers. I don't think that the article should take sides in that debate. The article should be neutral. Regards, Ground Zero | t

The antonym of neutral is belligerent, nor did I put belligerent in direct quotation. Louis XVIII is "neutral". It's a fact that the perfectly legal Charter of 1814 cited Louis XVIII's reign as beginning in 1795, upon his nephew's death. While we are on the subject of neutrality, daubing la Maison de Bourbon with the appellation "bad rulers" is not only a superficial judgement, but belligerent and untrue. Faithfully, -- Jack McNamee -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be petty and dwell on a mere typo, I did not fiaxte on the typo you inadvertantly inserted into the article on the 9th. "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages"- Wikipedia:Be bold -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Edit War: "An edit war occurs when contributors, or groups of contributors, try to impose their view by repeatedly reverting each other's contributions, rather than resolve the disagreement by discussion. To report editors who are edit warring, please see the Edit warring noticeboard". PleaSe don't accuse me of starting an edit war, when I clearly have not. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that you reverted my edit while we were having a discussion about it instead of waiting to see my response and giving it fair consideration. Should I be bold and restore my edit while we are having this discussion? No, that would be a waste of your time and mine. Let's resolve this civilly. i will move the relevant parts of the discussion to the article talk page so that other editors can comments if they choose.

I am not accusing you of being belligerent. I am saying that the statement that Louis had a rightful place on throne of France is not neutral. It is based on acceptance of the Charter of 1814 as being "perfectly legal", which republicans and Bonapartists wouldn't accept, or they would not have opposed Louis being on the throne. Should Wikipedia reflect only the Royalist point of view?

Let's continue the discussion here. Ground Zero | t 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***Louis XVIII was restored to his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...***

Ground Zero, please accept my apologies for butting in what may not be any of my business, but I was in a conversation with Jack when your msg came in. I had read the above sentence & had thought of removing *his rightful place* but left it after reflection. The epoch of the French Revolution thru the First Empire of Napoléon was viewed from a different angle depending if you were of the Bourbon family or a revolutionary. Maybe that Napoléon viewed the monarchy to be an abomination, but I can assure you that the royalists viewed the Revolution to be an abomination and, in their heart & mind, never accepted the legality of the Republic, the Consulate or the Empire. In other words, for Louis XVIII, his brother & their faithful, the period 1789-1814 was a period they wished out of existence. The Revolution had not killed the love many had toward their king & many acclaimed the Restoration. Personally, I think this sentiment should not be ignored and, in order for the reader to understand that these 25 years were not glorified by all French people and, in particular, by the brother of Louis XVI, could not the sentence read:

***Louis XVIII was restored to what he felt was his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...***

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must catch a flight now, Ground Zero. I may not be able to participate in the Louis XVIII debate during my month long absence. Regards, --- Jack1755 (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, merci pour vos remerciements. C'est bien que cette affaire ait été résolue si rapidement, sans casse et avant le départ en vacances de Jack. Bien à vous, Frania W. (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GroundZero. After a FACT tag is added to an article to indicate a statement or statements that needs/need citation, how much time should pass before the unreferenced statement(s) is/are removed? Thanks! SpikeToronto (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any rules around this, or even much discussion. I think you have to use your discretion. If it is in a biography of a living person and it could be offensive to that person, the statement should be removed right away -- see WP:BLP. If it is a fairly innocuous statement in any article that is only occasionally edited, you might want to leave it there for months. In between, if an article is edited frequently, a week or two could be reasonable. If someone has just added a questionable statement without a citation, I am inclined to remove it immediately and ask them to provide a citation before re-adding it. I know you were looking for a more precise answer, but I hope this helps. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, and as per usual, you have provided great guidance. Thanks! Btw, and on a completely different topic, I add so many commas copy editing articles, I think I am going to have to start depleting the stockpile on your user page. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP as a sock of the nationalist editor Bk2006, let me know if you ever think he's back. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, it was unintentional.

Thank you.

--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nice job.--Murat (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very kind to the editor who is inserting a research essay into the article; I envy you your patience. I could not refrain from cutting a few of the needless remarks contributed by that IP. Thanks for being much nicer and probably more helpful than me, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your response, and I agree absolutely with your remark about the references. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While making vandalism repairs to articles, I came across the above-captioned entry. I would like to propose the Dimitri Pavicevic article for deletion, speedy if possible. It reads like a conspiracy theory diatribe. Moreover, the authors to whom it is credited were journalists of the 1950s, while the “article” suggests that the subject is a man of the 21st century, linked in some underground way with current Russian leaders. The article was created by User:Dimitripavicevic, the same name as the subject of the article, and whose User page has text similar to the article. A look at his contributions indicates that he has only ever edited this article. He was apprised of WP:COI rules on his Talk page. He may now be the anonymous editor who has continued to edit the article, but I cannot ascertain this without checkuser; however, this anonymous editor has only ever edited this article. There was a speedy delete tag added two days ago, but another user replaced the speedy delete tag with an unreferenced tag, which the aforementioned anonymous editor has since removed, but without providing any references. In any event, I cannot figure out which criteria apply. Would you be so kind as to suggest one? Thanks! In the meantime, I have added some templates to the article such as {{BLP unsourced}}, {{Notability}}, and {{Wikify}}. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The anonymous editor has since removed the {{BLP unsourced}}, {{Notability}}, and {{Wikify}} templates that I added to the article and is claiming that the entire article was written by:

Written By Frank Smyth (Am-Brit media) accredited journalists Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists

If that is true, which I doubt since the men were working five decades ago and there are more recent mentions therein (e.g., Putin), then in addition to everything else, there is a copyright issue. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done     — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not helping out on this one. It was on my to-do list, but I went away for the weekend, and so on. I'm glad it got resolved. Sorry again. Ground Zero | t 03:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! No need to apologize. You’ve always been so helpful ever since I joined Wikipedia. I regularly peruse your Talk page for the helpful information contained therein. As for this matter, I assumed you might be busy and that you would get to it when time permitted. In any event, the article got deleted as per A7, which I am not sure actually applied, but it does the trick anyway. I expect a new version of the aticle to appear any day now … then it’ll be your turn to deal with it. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Petition in Scotland is a legal entity and thus written with a capital 'P'. Please do not revert this again.--Cyber Fox (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SAID: "11:25, 25 August 2009 Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (9,282 bytes) (blogs and youtube are not reliable sources -- see WP:RS) (undo)" as your PRETEXT for deleting NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, including a SCAN of a printed newspaper article, and ONLINE newspapers, including THE VANCOUVER SUN, which is hardly a "blog". As for YOUTUBE, the Canadian Action Party itself maintains its own videos at YouTube, and the CLIPS of videos posted to support the EDITS that you destroyed were clips taken from THEIR OWN VIDEOS of THEIR OWN FOUNDER. Unfortunately, the h-a-l-f-w-i-t-s at SICK-O-PEDIA have no clue what a SOURCE IS, they can't tell the VANCOUVER SUN NEWSPAPER from a blog; furthermore many NEWSPAPERS and other PROFESSIONAL MEDIA do have their own Blogs, and the fact that they are blogs does not detract from their factuality. Clearly, SICKO-PEDIA prefers Alice-in-Wonderland LAUNDERED history and WHITEWASHED "facts" to REAL, SUBSTANTIATED facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.11.34 (talk)

• Have a rainbow day! Ground Zero | t 13:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your cleanup work on LaRouche movement. I noticed you turned a prose list into bullet points. That caught me eye because there's an RfC in another article about that issue. A couple of editors have opined there that prose is better. If you have a different view I'm sure it'd be appreciated. (I don't care one way or another). Talk:Aesthetic Realism#RfC on the Opening Description. Cheers,   Will Beback  talk  17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know about this. I found the sentence to be long and convoluted, so listing it seemed to make a lot of sense. I'll take a look at that discussion. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank sections without discussing it on the talk page first. I reverted your edits, but I should have simply undone them. My mistake. However, the information should be stored in a new article, not simply blanked. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly misleading to describe the 2006 federal election as the latest national election. Also, we have articles on the 2006 and 2008 federal elections. There is no need to repeat the information in this article. Ground Zero | t 20:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that you should at least discuss it on the talk page. When I hit the rollback, I interpreted it as section blanking. It wasn't until I went back and really thought about it that I figured it might've been a good faith edit that should have been disucssed.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in the edit summary: "there was an election in 2008", which really should have been enough. I did not think there was a need to discuss something that was so obvious. As far as storing the information in a new article, it appears to have been copied from Canadian federal election, 2006, so it already exists in Wikipedia. I was not deleting content from the encyclopedia, just removing an incorrect duplication of content. Ground Zero | t 22:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, sorry then.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy editing. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Cold Y Generation, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Y Generation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was on vandalism patrol and came across a userid that is virtually the same as yours. If you ever find your edits being confused for someone else’s … or vice versa … I guess with thousands upon thousands of registered editors it was bound to happen! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind keeping an eye on the article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois, I believe that Philbox17 will begin reverting or deleting my cited entries today or soon. I note that their user talk page confirms that assertion. It would not surprise me that this editor belongs to Réseau de Résistance du Québécois and does not have a neutral point of view, Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With these two reverts, I have undone two of Philbox17’s unconstructive edits. (See history for full explanations.) A third edit I cannot undo. It involved the removal — without explanation — of verifiable references/citations. — Spike (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oei888 has nominated Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philbox17 is now using the accounts User:PatrioteQc and User:Québécois101. Can you have the admins block these one's too. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! Okay, no need to sound so aggresive over a mistake :S Alex250P (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for sounding aggressive - it was only because I had let you know about this issue before, and you seemed to have ignored my request. I would also point out that I offered to provide you additional assistance if anything was unclear. I trust that it is not. Ground Zero | t 17:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70" that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user 76.64.152.111 try to block all the users who edit the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois article. He erase all other users contributions and try to block everybody editing this article by calling them sockpuppets. Considering he try to block everybody and don't want to cooperate I ask you to block this anonymus user 76.64.152.111. Thank you. User:Québécois1837

A tag has been placed on File:Davidlewis.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:Davidlewis.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Padraic 00:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I need a third party opinion on the article regarding the presidential election in California. Please go on the talk page on the last section and share your opinion. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ground Zero! Sometime ago, with this edit, I created a REDIRECT from John Dauglish to Aerated Bread Company (ABC). At that time, there were no other pages entitled, John Dauglish. He was the founder of the Aerated Bread Company and its ABC tea shops which eventually grew to be one of the U.K.’s largest corporations in the Victorian and Edwardian eras. However, the man’s sole importance was the creation of his unique bread-making techinque and the founding of his company. So, I felt that there was little need for a stub about him, and that anything there would ever be of importance about him would be in the main ABC article. Therefore, I created the REDIRECT. Today, that redirect was “hijacked” for use by another wikieditor to create a stub about an Anglican Bishop of the same name

So, I added a Hatnote to the top of that editor’s new stub using {{about}} directing anyone looking for the physician and founder of ABC to Aerated Bread Company. I would like to draw on your vast experience and expertise for the following questions:

1. Did I add the Hatnote with {{about}} correctly? (It’s my first one.)
2. Do I need also to create a DAB page?
3. Should the wikieditor that converted the REDIRECT page to his own use in order to create a stub, given that s/he had to have discovered that it was redirecting to an article about a different John Dauglish, have already done all of this? And, if so, should someone place a friendly reminder to that effect on his/her talk page?

Thanks for your help! Looking forward to your guidance. — SpikeToronto (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Spike, I have only spoaradic access to the internet for the next couple of weeks, so I can`t help on this. I don`t think that hijacking is the right word here since s/he replaced a redirect with an actual article, even if it is a stub. As long as a reader looking for your John can find her/his way to the AEB article, I think you`ve succeeded. Regards, GZ[reply]

I wondered if you could give me hand updating the article. I moved the original article, since I understand there was a merger in September of this year. If you don´t feel that it was appropriate, please revert. Thanks--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I put Storylines as a heading? I think it's perfectly factual, especially as the article could do with a development section being added, keep reverting my edits if you wish but there is a method in my madness, not that i would call it madness >.> Alex250P (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll respond on your talk page. Ground Zero | t 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems to me to be quite arguable, although perhaps it doesn't matter very much which is linked. The lead of House of Commons of the United Kingdom says plainly "The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom... A House of Commons evolved at some point in England..." Both that article and House of Commons refer to the House of Commons of the Parliament of England (in fact, of course, of England and Wales). I thought linking House of Commons was the less misleading option.

I can't help thinking there's enough separateness about the pre-1707 House of Commons that it deserves an article of its own. Moonraker2 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that the lead paragraph of House of Commons of the United Kingdom is problematic, that article still provides much more information about the English House of Commons than does the House of Commons article. Of the two articles, HofCUK is a clear winner in my mind.
• It may be that linking to Parliament of England would be a better option.
• I have also been thinking that it would be a good idea to split out the pre-1707 House of Commons into its own article. We have, after all, a series of articles for the Parliament of England, Parliament of Great Britain and Parliament of the United Kingdom. The only thing that worries me is that we would then have a lot of articles linked to House of Commons of the United Kingdom incorrectly. Your thoughts? Ground Zero | t 02:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your logic. On the problem of links, that's a technical problem which must come about when any page is split. From the 'What links here' list, we can see all the links, and it would just take a little time to go through them and make new ones to the new article where appropriate. If we get to that point, I'd be happy to help out. Moonraker2 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess we should start a discussion about splitting the HofCUK article to Talk:House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and proceed from there. Ground Zero | t 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your advice on "which" and "that", and it does give good general rules for which word to use in subordinate clauses (that should be spelled out - there are other uses for both words), but it seems to me that the subject is more complex. I dug around and found some valid sentences that seem to break the rules:

• "For calls to numbers within the London area, but which cost more than 10p ..."
• "The man recovered from the bite. It was the dog that died"
• "Is there anything more that has to be done?"
• "That was a wonderful meal, which I greatly enjoyed. In fact, it was best meal that I've ever eaten"

Maybe it is best to avoid both words altogether:

• My blue car needs painting.
• My car is blue, and needs painting.

Or maybe that which sounds right is best, and that's that. Or that's which, as the case may be. Argghh! Aymatth2 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

• I think this would be better: "For calls to numbers within the London area that cost more than 10p ..."
• "The man recovered from the bite. It was the dog that died" - I see no problem with this. It is clear that the dog in question question is the dead one and not some other dog.
• "Is there anything more that has to be done?" - This works: there are always lots of things, but we are wondering specifically about those things that still have to be done.
• "That was a wonderful meal, which I greatly enjoyed. In fact, it was best meal that I've ever eaten" - These work for me.

Maybe it is best to avoid both words altogether:

• My blue car needs painting.
• My car is blue, and needs painting.

- These are good sentences too, and they avoid the which/that issue. Ground Zero | t 19:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And did Churchill use "which" correctly when he said "This is the kind of impertinence up with which I shall not put"? Nobody can question Churchill's use of English. But in this context, the preposition surrounding "which" seems be defining "kind of impertinence". If the sentence were rearranged into any other sequence, surely "that" would be more natural. Time for a glass of wine - or a bottle. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different matter altogether. First, no-one is infallible: not Churchill, and certainly not me. He was clearly correct here, even if no-one would ever say such a thing except in jest, as he was doing. We're dealing with a prepositional phrase here, not a subordinate clause. You can't say "up with that I will not put". That does not make any sense. Ground Zero | t 19:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being entirely serious, but "which" and "that" were chasing themselves around in my head. After a while the rules got blurry. Part of the problem may be that "which" is used for choice as well as for description:

• "Which one do you like best?"
• "Choose which one you like best"
• "Choose this one, which you like best"
• "Choose the one which you like best"

All four of the above express similar concepts, and use many of the same words, but the last is wrong. Most people would not see a problem with the last one. Common mistakes cannot be serious mistakes. It breaks the rules but it is clear what it means, so I would not be too concerned about it. "It was the dog that died" is related, concerning choice. "Which of them died? It was the dog which died" is probably also correct but does not sound good. In this case "which died" does not really define or describe the dog, but restates the question.

You could say "Up with that kind of impertinence I will not put". I would not advise it, and it does not work in the context. Churchill was right. The quote on calls in the London area is adapted from a group of similar sentences found in Fowler, and which Fowler approves of. (There is a group of similar sentences. The group is found in Fowler. Fowler approves of the group. His reasoning is that there is an implied "which is" before "found in".)

The best rule is to make sentences simple and active. That avoids all the difficulties. Encyclopedia articles have to be clear. They do not have to be masterpieces of elegant prose. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note of context: The Churchill quote above, as GZ pointed out, was made in jest. Churchill had just been told that he could not end a sentence with a preposition, that doing so violated the rules of good grammar. Thus, rather than saying “This is the kind of impertinence I shall not put up with,” he said, “This is the kind of impertinence up with which I shall not put.” He did so to show the good grammarian who had taken it upon himself to correct Churchill’s grammar that rules can and should be broken in order to make one’s meaning clear. The resultant sentence, “This is the kind of impertinence up with which I shall not put,” was meant to show the grammarian the sort of nonsense that blind adherence to grammatical prescriptivism can result in. Or should that be, “the sort of nonsense with which blind adherence to grammatical prescriptivism can result?” — SpikeToronto 17:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See three paragraphs above. I could not bring myself to write "... and of which Fowler approves". "And of which?" There are some people in white coats circling around my house carrying very large butterfly nets. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a satisfactory way to write an article just about the division of the company that operates dams where I live, even though another division of the company has its own article. The Long Sault Division needed some information, so I added it. I admit I didn't try to find just what was meant by the FDR St. Lawrence Project. Wikipedia didn't have anything and I got tired of doing all the research for what wasn't really the necessary part of the article.

Since you said that was a problem, I can look into it when I get time.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take much time at all.[2]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you may have a point regarding the use of bold text as per wiki-standards that i was not versed in, going and reverting some of the articles you had issues with when other formatting and content changes that were done in the same edit session was not helpful. Please consider this before reverting content carte blanche. eja2k 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please consider that you made a lot of changes all in one go that were incorrect. It took a lot of work to undo your mistakes. I reverted some articles simply because of the volume, and I spent a lot of time cleaning up after you. I would be interested to know why you made this reversion, which (a) restored the boldfacing error I had pointed out to you, and (b) restored a capitalization error that I had corrected, and (c) did nothing else. Ground Zero | t 11:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to refer to the article The Queensway (Toronto) and see the street sign ... the Street in this case is called "The Queensway" just as "The Esplanade" is signed and known as such ... its a bit different than "the United Kingdom" ... also the article on The Queensway has numerous examples in which it is refered to as The with a capital T.

As for your comments Re: bold text... if you look at the example in the policy re: truck types ... the type of truck is bolded with the description of said truck not bolded. Not quite unlike how the name of the bus route was bolded and the description or direction of travel was in plain text... I believe you are taking issues with things in gray areas and causing problems in poor faith sir.

Respectfully, eja2k 03:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As follow up to the "The" debate, it appears the convention is if the word THE is part of the proper name of an item such as The New York Times "the" remains capitalized in the for mentioned article "The Times" is referenced therefor in both The Queensway and The Esplanade a capital T would be appropriate in all references to the street as the word The is part of the proper name.

Also as follow up to the bolding issue, articles in the New York Subway system refer in line text with bold for connecting routes see 125th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) where connecting train route numbers are in-line text and in bold, all articles in re: NYC subway use this convention and I fail to understand the issue with refering to the route name (47 Lansdowne) with bold and the descriptor (- to Yorkdale Station via Bridgeland and Caledonia) in plain text. Please clarify your argument as there is enough evidence to support my methodology

eja2k 03:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On boldfacing: citing other instances where the Manual of Style is not being followed, such as the New York example, is not a sufficient argument for doing so in other articles. Articles can be found that violate every part of the Manual of Style, including capitalization of headings, for example, and article scan be found that violate every Wikipedia policy, such as neutral point of view and using reliable sources. These examples are things that should be corrected, rather than excuses to toss away the manuals and policies that the Wikipedia community has adopted.

With respect to the truck types, WP:BOLDFACE is clear:

Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:

• Table headers
• Definition lists (example: Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States)
• Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats

The lists of connecting bus routes is TTC articles are not definition lists. The trucking example cited is a glossary - it is a list of definitions of the boldfaced terms. Providing directions of travel is not a definition of a term.

I will return to the capitalization issue at another time. I disagree with your conclusion on it, but can live with it for now. Ground Zero | t 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wish to make the distinction between the bus route and the direction of travel/specific branch of the route more obvious. Any suggestions on how I might do that? The article for Don Mills (TTC) uses a wiki-table, but I'm sure you would object to a wiki-table in ever article. So what is your recommendation to include one reference to the route Number and name "47 Lansdowne" with the info "to St. Clair", "47B to Yorkdale Station via Bridgeland and Caledonia" etc. A table would work... but i just want to make sure that I don't go to all that work only to have it reverted on me.

eja2k 18:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your comment that "I believe you are taking issues with things in gray areas and causing problems in poor faith sir" above, please review WP:Assume good faith. I am a Wikipedia editor of long standing, have made thousands of contributions, and have been elected as an administrator by the Wikipedia community. I do not appreciate being accused of "poor faith", especially as I demonstrated good faith by explaining to you why I made the changes, and cited the specific part of WP:MOS that I felt your changes violated. As you are a new editor, I welcome you to Wikipedia, but suggest that you become more familiar with its policies and guides before making wholesale changes to articles or accusations such as this one.

I do not see why the distinction between the bus route and the direction of travel/specific branch of the route needs to be more obvious. There is no need to use lots of formatting just because we can. This is a case of "less being more". You might want to consider using sub-bullets (use two asterisks instead of one) for branch routes instead of indentations, e.g.,

• 85 Sheppard East
  • 85B Sheppard East: Toronto Zoo

The Manual of Style has this advice on When not to use emphasis: "Avoid various kinds of overemphasis, which distracts from the writing...."

With regard to your comments "I'm sure you would object to a wiki-table in ever article", you shouldn't assume what I or anyone else thinks. You can ask instead. It isn't rude to ask, while the accusatory tone you use above is not polite. I think the table in the Don Mills article is a matter of excessive formatting - it looks pretty ugly, and doesn't add any information.

And finally, with regard to your comment that "i just want to make sure that I don't go to all that work only to have it reverted on me", I do not think that any experienced editor likes to revert others' work - I certainly don't - but it happens all of the time when people make edits that are not consistent with Wikipedia policies or guides. It happens to me, too, because I do not know everything about the policies and guides - I don't think anyone does. Having work reverting is frustrating, but it is how we learn about Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Sorry to leave a pointless message but I was freaked out when I noticed my name when I was searching to create a new usersubpage and my name was in a conversation I had never been in lol Anyways hey there again and happy edits, and soon Thanksgiving as well! GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ground Zero,

I noticed a few of your edits on other articles. I noticed that the Harmonized Sales Tax article was pretty bare considering it's such a national topic of conversation. Would you mind helping me contribute to it? Thanks for your consideration! --Pdelongchamp (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I notice we've had a few disagreements about elections templates recently. I thought it might be best if I clarified my position on a few matters, rather than risk getting into an edit war at some point in the future:

(i) Percentages: two decimal points or one?

I've always preferred rounding off the numbers to two decimal points in the "percentage" column. My rationale is fairly straightforward: when the results are close, two digits can give a better indication of the distance between candidates' results. I recognize that not everyone wants or needs this much information, but I'd prefer to read about Candidate X defeating Candidate Y by 42.94-42.85% or 42.94-42.92%, instead of 42.9-42.9%.

(ii) Where to use the percentage symbol?

I am opposed to including the "%" symbol beside individual results in the "%" column, for reasons of logical construction (i.e., it's redundant to say "Candidate X's percentage was 42.94%"). I recognize that some readers may prefer the symbol for convenience; I think it's unnecessary.

I should add that I'm not opposed to rounding off candidate expense numbers; I had simply cut and paste the "detailed" numbers directly from Elections Canada's reports. CJCurrie (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CJ, I’ve been trying to clean up the election results in the current federal riding articles because they are a mess: there is a lot of missing information and inconsistency in formatting. I think at a minimum:

1. we should be trying to present the number of votes, % of vote, change from last election, and expenditure in the last election (more if possible) -- I have been using the CanElec2, CanElec4 and CanElec5 templates -- and
2. each article should have consistent formatting, i.e., all percentages to the same decimal place, and either use the % sign or not.

Most articles use the % sign, so I’ve been going with that format for ease of editing, and because I assume that reflects the views of most editors. There are relatively few articles that don’t use the % sign.

With respect to decimal places, where an article has consistently used two decimal places, I have kept that format. Where it is mixed, it is much easier to round up than to recalculate. I don’t think we’re going to see anyone step forward to volunteer to do all of the recalculations.

In the case of tables that you have converted to a template for use in other articles, I am leaving the formatting as is so as not to mess up the formatting of other articles where you use those tables.

From what I have seen of the Atlantic provinces articles, which I will get to in the coming months, most use two decimal places, with the exception of some that have one decimal place for 2008. I will be recalculating 2008 to two places for consistency.

I’ve been working my way from west to east to this end, and I aim to complete the project before the election so that Wikipedia can be a good resource at a time when interest is highest. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

By way of a belated response, I'm not really too concerned about the "%" sign ... it's just a personal preference. I have tried to include all the points of information that you've mentioned above in recent articles, though there was a period when I abandoned the "+/-" results as too cumbersome.

I should add that the italicized expenditure numbers refer to situations wherein Elections Canada hasn't released their audited figures yet. I've tried to reference this information on article pages wherein the templates are stored, rather than include it as part of the templates themselves (since the latter option would run the risk of having the same information appear several items in an article with multiple templates). CJCurrie (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Also: [3] CJCurrie (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wondering what the italics were about. I haven't been able to find anything about that - I guess I didn't know where to look. I understand about not wanting to have the information repeated, but it seems that it is not appearing at all in the riding articles, so I was thinking if the "code" information wasn't available to the reader, there was no point in having the code in the table. Ground Zero | t 02:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy GZ. Are you sure neither of these Canadian federal parties had leadership conventions? GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day, please reconsider whether this question is civil or not. I do not see the need for this sort of question. I have posted the issue of discussion at Wikipedia:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Requested_moves.2C_mergers_.26_splits. Ground Zero | t 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed that I must request a new account from an administrator in order to resume my Wikipedia career. Since late 2007, my roommate and I have used various usernames to both positively contribute to Wikipedia and vandalise it... I must stress that I am not simply a career vandal. Today, I am over the juvenile excitement of vandalism and am aware of the disruption it causes to the good work of editors, including my own. I wish to embark on a fully constructive Wiki career and assure you that there will be no vandalistic edits; I am sure you would issue an instant block if that were the case. Recently I have set up a number of purely constructive accounts, which were blocked for "ban evasion". My IP was blocked for 24 hours, then I was free to set up new usernames, so I don't quite understand the "evasion". Please assist me in resuming a career of constructive edits without being banned again for evading a block - I would like a new username where I can explicitly state that an administator has permitted it, and to look at my fully constructive list of contributions in order to prevent future blocks and accusations on my talk page. Thank you for your time. 88.110.30.128 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]