This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 Bank of Ireland robbery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving 2009 Bank of Ireland robbery was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 March 2009. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Ireland may be able to help! |
I disagree that the circumstances described in the Context section is relevant. Just as important would be the day's football results. I have cut and paste the section here:
Paul Beardsell ( talk) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
The text is verbose, confused and in some cases irrelevant. Do we really need to know that the boy was collected because his parents were enroute to a holiday in Spain?! In addition it is extremely hard to read and make sense of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.202.122 ( talk) 11:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
An assessment must stand on its own. That an assessor has a good reputation is of no import. If you assess you must say how the article can be improved. Do not remove the assessment of the assessment. If that goes then so must the assessment itself. Please just say what must be done to improve the article. Thanks. Then the assessment of the assessment as being of poor quality can be removed. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to get something constructive done, do something constructive. Who does anyone think they are to "assess" an article by just giving it a star rating? and to do so practically anonymously? without offering reasons for the assessment? It is artist vs critic but here the critic cannot even be bothered to offer a critique. I think that behaviour is ugly. Who set you up in judgement? Who are you to say I cannot assess your assessment? You can dish it up but you cannot take it. Go edit an article. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 08:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel tempted to patronise and explain how WP works. All I have done is operate how an editor (i.e. a creator of the encyclopedia, not a critic) is supposed to behave. I have acted boldly, I have explained what I have done, and I have even copied the deleted section to the Talk page as one of the WP guidelines suggests. What I have not done is "undermine ww2censor". I have nothing against him, or you, personally. In my view many of the assessments being handed out are against well established WP practise. And they are certainly happening in contravention of the advice contained in the very templates being inserted willy-nilly into the articles as supposed assessments. I care not one jot about the good reputation of he or you but of the quality of the articles. There are artists and critics. You and he, when acting as critics, do not even have the good grace to pass on any critique. It's simply Caeser's thumb, up or down. No reasoning is recorded anywhere. You are not contributing, at best you are meta-contributing. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
And you do this again now. You say you do not like what I am doing in my edits to the article but you decline to say what it is I am doing which is counterproductive or which is against the guidelines. No, you don't like it and that is good enough. No, it isn't. Put up or shut up. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
And it seems some assessors can dish it out but can't take it. We're supposed to stand idly by while some punks graffiti the talk pages with their unreasoned, unjustified (or at least UNDOCUMENTED) unthinking value judgements of our hard work. Then, when I say I think the assessments are themselves poor they squeal like stuck pigs. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The links to the articles on the Volkswagen Golf and Toyota Celica seem a bit out of place. Any thoughts? Mattbondy ( talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Update needed. -- Candlewicke S T # :) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The article shouldn't include any more personal details than are strictly necessary. Let's not forget that most of the people mentioned here are notable only for this one event. Physchim62 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Would it be necessary? The Squicks ( talk) 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This article claims the robbery was motivated by a debt to the Colombian cartel. No mention? Grsz 11 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2009 Bank of Ireland robbery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 Bank of Ireland robbery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving 2009 Bank of Ireland robbery was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 March 2009. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Ireland may be able to help! |
I disagree that the circumstances described in the Context section is relevant. Just as important would be the day's football results. I have cut and paste the section here:
Paul Beardsell ( talk) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
The text is verbose, confused and in some cases irrelevant. Do we really need to know that the boy was collected because his parents were enroute to a holiday in Spain?! In addition it is extremely hard to read and make sense of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.202.122 ( talk) 11:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
An assessment must stand on its own. That an assessor has a good reputation is of no import. If you assess you must say how the article can be improved. Do not remove the assessment of the assessment. If that goes then so must the assessment itself. Please just say what must be done to improve the article. Thanks. Then the assessment of the assessment as being of poor quality can be removed. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to get something constructive done, do something constructive. Who does anyone think they are to "assess" an article by just giving it a star rating? and to do so practically anonymously? without offering reasons for the assessment? It is artist vs critic but here the critic cannot even be bothered to offer a critique. I think that behaviour is ugly. Who set you up in judgement? Who are you to say I cannot assess your assessment? You can dish it up but you cannot take it. Go edit an article. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 08:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel tempted to patronise and explain how WP works. All I have done is operate how an editor (i.e. a creator of the encyclopedia, not a critic) is supposed to behave. I have acted boldly, I have explained what I have done, and I have even copied the deleted section to the Talk page as one of the WP guidelines suggests. What I have not done is "undermine ww2censor". I have nothing against him, or you, personally. In my view many of the assessments being handed out are against well established WP practise. And they are certainly happening in contravention of the advice contained in the very templates being inserted willy-nilly into the articles as supposed assessments. I care not one jot about the good reputation of he or you but of the quality of the articles. There are artists and critics. You and he, when acting as critics, do not even have the good grace to pass on any critique. It's simply Caeser's thumb, up or down. No reasoning is recorded anywhere. You are not contributing, at best you are meta-contributing. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
And you do this again now. You say you do not like what I am doing in my edits to the article but you decline to say what it is I am doing which is counterproductive or which is against the guidelines. No, you don't like it and that is good enough. No, it isn't. Put up or shut up. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
And it seems some assessors can dish it out but can't take it. We're supposed to stand idly by while some punks graffiti the talk pages with their unreasoned, unjustified (or at least UNDOCUMENTED) unthinking value judgements of our hard work. Then, when I say I think the assessments are themselves poor they squeal like stuck pigs. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The links to the articles on the Volkswagen Golf and Toyota Celica seem a bit out of place. Any thoughts? Mattbondy ( talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Update needed. -- Candlewicke S T # :) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The article shouldn't include any more personal details than are strictly necessary. Let's not forget that most of the people mentioned here are notable only for this one event. Physchim62 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Would it be necessary? The Squicks ( talk) 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This article claims the robbery was motivated by a debt to the Colombian cartel. No mention? Grsz 11 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2009 Bank of Ireland robbery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)