![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sorry about that. I had restored that based on a secondhand reference from User:OCEAN...but I only put the source in the edit summary (as reported in Tim S. Grover's book "Jump Attack" per User:OCEAN)), which had long since scrolled off the history.
So, do you feel that is a valid source for the information? -- Syrthiss 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Good call - I don't have a copy myself, but I intended to check that book - if anyone, Grover should know. Being cynical, he has a vested interest in talking up Jordan's vertical, but we're unlikely to find a better source.
Hippo43
19:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted Jacrosse's edits to Neoconservatism in the United States for the ninth time and protected the article. I also filed a request for comment on the edit conflict. He seems to have an aversion to discussing the concerns that you, I, Jmabel, and TDC raised on the talk page. What do you think can be done to bring him around? — thames 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the slow reply - I have no idea what to do with someone like that, other than somehow getting rid of them. Seems able to ruin an article single-handedly and I just don't have the time to watch out for it.
Hippo43
19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there. I reverted your edits as they appeared to be leading the reader to believe that Celtic Park is 5 star by giving more bias to one line on the UEFA news site. Whilst I would generally agree that the UEFA site is a better source for this type of information than the other link provided. The problem with the UEFA link is that at the time of publication the information was definitely incorrect.
[ http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2003_Report.pdf] - Celtic state that they need to do work to make their stadium 5 star.
[1] - Hampdens official site mentions Ibrox and Hampden as being 5 star. [2] - Evening Times article published after UEFA news article says Celtic were planning to do work. All of this, especially the first link, would confirm that Celtic Park was not a 5star stadium when the UEFA article was published, therefore it is inaccurate. -- Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Neither of your sources carry much weight - an Evening Times article dated 2003 about Celtic's plans for the next year and a POV piece about Hampden ["there is not a ground in Britain that has comparable facilities"??] are hardly reputable sources. While you may well be correct, until someone provides a genuine UEFA source for this, it will remain unresolved.
However, you removed a paragraph of detail about Celtic Park which had nothing to do with the 5-star issue, and gave no explanation of either change in your edit summary. Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. Hippo43 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star. As for the source about Hampden, it comes from the official site for Hampden, Scotlands national stadium, it obviously will talk up its own facilities this does not make it POV, unless you are claiming that the SFA have a conspiracy to lead people to believe that Celtic park is not 5star? -- Roy Biv ( talk • contribs )
You wrote:- "Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. ", I only reverted your biased POV edits. You are missing the point of Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, you do not own articles. -- Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
My edits were neither biased or POV - I have frequently stated that I want to get to the bottom of this with a current, reliable source, and that you may well be correct. Hampden's official website is clearly POV - it is intended to promote Hampden, contains obvious hype, and cannot be relied upon to provide accurate info on other stadia.
Giving no sources or edit summaries for your contributions on these sorts of topics can cause edit wars which can make this encyclopedia pretty useless. You removed a paragraph of info on the various parts of the stadium that had nothing to do with 5-star status, presumably because you didn't check everything that had been added after the edit that you disagreed with. I do understand the point of wikipedia - I don't claim to own articles, or my own contribution to them, but you have been arbitrarily removing people's work without explanation, which is definitely not the point. I only asked you (politely) to follow protocol here and use courtesy if you are editing my (or anyone else's) work.
Your first sentence above - "I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star." - doesn't make much sense. Can you clarify what you mean? Hippo43 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
My issue with you removing my other edits is that you seem to have an attitude about me not knowing what "the point of wikipedia is" - I simply asked you to be careful about what you remove and give explanations for it. I note you have since edited the Donald Findlay article several times without explanation, so I'm obviously not making it up. Above, you wrote that I "obviously make POV edits" - which ones do you mean? You say you found my edits "deliberately misleading" but don't say why.
As for your conspiracy theory, I haven't said any such thing about the Hampden site - I said simply that its role is to promote Hampden, and not to give accurate info on any other stadia. The tone of the article is clearly promoting Hampden, and so is essentially an advert for Hampden, not a site which can be relied upon for accurate, up-to-date info on other facilities in Glasgow.
As for the Celtic report from 2003, it is clearly now out of date - the 2004 report from Celtic ( http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2004_Report.pdf) also mentions work on stadium improvement, so I figure we need an up-to-date source from somewhere to confirm the status either way. Do you know of a source from the last 2 years which confirms the status of Celtic Park now? Again, you may be right, but arguing over sources from 2003 doesn't sort this out one way or the other. Hippo43 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hippo43. I made reference to your excellent contributions on this subject at Talk:Graeme Souness recently. The current thread is at Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Signing_policy. Thanks if you are able to help. -- Guinnog 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've contributed to the Keele University article a few times. Assuming you're alumni you may be interested in this: Template:User Keele Grunners ( talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
When the press, and, indeed, Tatler's School Guide, refer to Fettes as the "Eton of the North" they're complementing the school's exceedingly strong reputation. This is not something to shy away from. Therefore, even if you didn't attend Fettes, as a proud Scotsman, you should be flattered that our country hosts one of the finest Public Schools in the UK. As far as I see it, who are you to decide what Fettes post on their page? You clearly have no attachment to the school, only resentment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Western Province ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
See reply here - Talk:Fettes_College#.27Eton_of_the_North.27_.26_other_schools hippo43 ( talk) 22:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If you'd care to update the article in question with some reliable sources which back up your changes to Ibrox Stadium's classification (namely, the complete removal of such info), that would be great. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The existing sources at UEFA_elite_stadium look solid to me. The old 4- and 5-star classification doesn't exist any more, so I removed the out of date material, making the Ibrox article more accurate. To the best of my knowledge, Ibrox has not been assessed as an Elite stadium - if someone thinks it has, they will no doubt be able to provide a source confirming that. hippo43 ( talk) 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Thabo Mbeki appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
core policies. Thank you. For ridiculous over tagging.
Verbal
chat
19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"non-neutral point of view"? What are you talking about? If you object to specific tags, then find sources or re-write the material. The article is a mess, and you've done nothing to help improve it. hippo43 ( talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you have recently removed a section from Mizuno Corp. I agree that much of the list is probably non notable, and there is no doubt is was random, but some of it is notable and could be salvaged. Perhaps inserting a {{ cleanup}} tag would be better? bigissue ( talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, when exactly did Michael Jordan wear #5? The Pan-American Games? Thanks, Zagalejo ^^^ 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hippo43, don't take it as ofensive, I am not going to disrupt your work on the Michael Jordan's article, as I am personally interested in making it better, too. It's just the quest for perfection, you see. I don't know anything at all about the NBA, I've just tagged all sentenced that seemed POV-ed for me. However, I've felt bold enough to restore some of the {{ citation needed}} templates you've removed. I hope that won't harm the article and you (or other Wikipedians) will find proper sources for the yet-untagged sentences. This is 2 AM in Poland, so I am not going to edit the article in a couple of hours—feel free to edit it the way you like. I'll have a look at it in the morning. Have a good day (you're out of the UTC, I take it?) :-) Tomasz W. Kozłowski ( talk) 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Kevin (
talk)
07:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)I was going to warn you for 3rr and then saw you had just come off a block for it and gone straight back to edit-warring. Your next block is likely to be for longer should you continue. Please don't edit-war but instead abide by consensus. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hippo. I believe you have to make a neutral statement on the request for comment on the section concerned. If you were already going to do so then ignore this message. Cheers. Jack forbes ( talk) 21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. I'm probably going to piss you off now. :) As`you requested the comment I think it would be better to elaborate on the statement to allow those coming in cold to get a good idea of the opposing views and reasons for those views. Two or three lines would normally suffice. Cheers. Jack forbes ( talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The existing position on this article was that geography followed politics. A proposal to reverse them DID NOT achieve consensus and the default position until consensus is reached is for geography to come first. Please make your case on the talk page rather than simply asserting a position that you know to be controversial. -- Snowded ( talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that it can be said not to be current. It is rare in the UK except in the phrase "rugger bugger" but the Yanks seem to use "rugger" and even use it to mean "rugby player" as well.
It is also true what Haldraper said about rugby league being known as "rugby" in the North of England though I think your edit is okay because it wouldn't be wrong to call rugby union "rugby" even in the North. GordyB ( talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand you are trying to help on the Siena College article, but I do question your edit taking out mention that there is a dispute as to the location of the college. There is a dispute and I would like it if you talked to me about your opinions or use the discussion page of the article. While you are right as to the MAILING address of the college this is due to the fact that the actual ZIP code that Siena College resides in (Newtonville) is one of those post offices that has PO Boxes ONLY and does not deliver mail. Residents and businesses that would like home delivery must ask the Loudonville Post Office for delivery, and therefore must use their ZIP code and name for home delivery, but can not get a PO box at the Loudonville PO. You can, and there are probably many instances of this, have a location that has home delivery inbetween two locations that have only PO Boxes that use Newtonville addressed. The Newtonville Park is directly across the street from the college, the Newtonville Post Office is about 100 yards up the street (probably considerably less), and the Newtonville Church(Methodist I think) is less than a 1/4 mile up the road. There is the Newton Plaza and Newton Plaza II up the road, and many businesses that use the Newton name, and the Pruyn House, a historical museum is usually listed as being in Newtonville.(from the official town of Colonie website- mail going to the Pruyn House to P.O. Box 212 Newtonville, NY 12128 but the address is 207 Old Niskayuna Road) Newtonville is labeled by a state DOT sign when going south out of Latham on Route 9 towards Siena College. Newtonville can be found on mapquest and area maps such as those published by Jimapco. As a compromise I propose saying the college is in the hamlet of Newtonville but has a Loudonville mailing address. There are apartments and a shopping plaza within the city of Albany that have Loudonville addresses but are still within the city of Albany, ZIP codes arent the determining factor of where a location resides. If it was then no location in the incorporated village of Menands, New York can be put in the Menands article (including its own village hall) because they all uses an Albany ZIP code. At least Newtonville actually does have a Post Office. Round Lake, New York which is an incorporated village has the same exact problem as Newtonville, its post office only does PO boxes, I am unsure who does local delivery. I hope this clears up any confusion about Newtonville and I believe part of your reasoning had something to do with notability..I hope the businesses and locations that use the Newtonville name along with the DOT sign on Route 9 help on that account, along with the fact that it does have an article (albeit a stub), I can expand the Newtonville article when I get a chance if that is part of the problem. Camelbinky ( talk) 02:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC) addendum- The Colonie Town Hall is listed on the official town website as being at 534 New Loudon Road, Newtonville, New York; it is directly across the street from the college...unless you proposing that the hamlet boundary between Loudonville and Newtonville goes down tmhe middle of Route 9 (New Loudon Road) then I think this should be definitive proof of what HAMLET the college is in regardless of its ZIP code. Camelbinky ( talk) 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I know you didn't add the {{who?}} tag. I never said you did. I respect that you are trying to maintain the notability and validity of information added to articles. However, your citation about the college being in Loudonville hamlet is not substantiated, because the source does not say Loudonville hamlet specifically, merely Loudonville, which could refer to the ZIP code. There are many places that have a mailing address that doesn't match up with their physical location. Gansevoort NY, for example, is a hamlet in the town of Northumberland. But because there is a ZIP code that uses Gansevoort as a mailing address, people in the towns of Northumberland, Wilton, and Moreau have a Gansevoort mailing address. It would be factually inaccurate to say that someone in the town of Moreau lives in the hamlet of Gansevoort simply because they have a Gansevoort mailing address. Two more examples: West Mountain Ski Area says it is in Glens Falls NY. The Great Escape and Splashwater Kingdom says it is in Lake George. But that is by ZIP code. Actually both are in the town of Queensbury. I feel that there is insufficient evidence thus far to support either Loudonville or Newtonville as the hamlet containing Siena College. -- JBC3 ( talk) 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you think, if the Postal Address (Loudonville) and Physical Address (Colonie) were both left in the infobox that the Location section could be removed all together? -- JBC3 ( talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Me the vandal? The article said Newtonville first. You changed it to Loudonville and continued to put it after sources were put in per your request. You didnt even discuss your change or your issues until I asked that you would, and then instead of waiting to compromise or a consensus amongst users in the discusion page you continued to change it. It should have been left alone until a consensus. So far there is one in favor of Newtonville as the hamlet and Loudonville as the ZIP code, one in favor of just Loudonville, and one in favor of "no consensus at this moment" (if I am correct as to JBC3's position). I am able to live with JBC3's position, that makes it 2-1. I think the best thing to do is for JBC3, since JBC3's position is the most neutral I suggest that JBC3 send this to the proper place for an admin to come in and look at all the available positions and content and decide on the best course of action. I strongly urge you, Hippo, to read ZIP code and Administrative divisions of New York and learn about ZIP codes and hamlets. You are basing your opinion on "you must have a source that comes out and says it" and that you are trying to keep the "integrity" of sources. I suggest that instead of just finding sources and medling in articles you dont know about that first you talk to people who know the area, know the intricacies, inconsistancies, and quirks of the area and topic. I know you are well-meaning and doing this in good-faith. But ALL guidelines in wikipedia are just that, guidelines, there are no hard fast rules, all have the disclaimer at the top that they are to be taken with "common sense" and that there are exceptions and times to bend them and times they just dont apply. Your view that these are not "reliable" sources is ridiculous. Mapquest is reliable for other articles, I dont need to have a specific citation from a "rulebook" (which wikipedia guidelines specifically state there is NO RULEBOOK) for it to be accepted. It has already been accepted by the wikipedia community. As for New York Magazine, are you kidding?! New York (magazine) is not a reliable source?! Then I guess neither is US News & World Report or any other weekly magazine (though USN&WR is now a monthly, not a weekly). It has its own wikipedia article! So the magazine is notable enough to get an article but not good enough to be a source. I forget the other source you had a problem with. And as I showed you and had in the article, the post office allows for Siena to be the city name on the address for the college! So if you are going to say that Loudonville is the hamlet or the ZIP code or whatever you want to say, then I am within my rights to use the USPS official website to show that the name Siena is also the hamlet it is within. But I guess you will claim the United State Postal Service is not a reliable source. Whatever I put as a source you will claim is not reliable. I have put forth many reasons, and so has JBC3 as to why ZIP codes and hamlets are not the same and the problem. I have shown you that the town hall of Colonie directly across the street is itself in the hamlet of Newtonville according to the town itself! Hamlets dont just start on one side of the street like that! The Newtonville PO is within a 2 min walk from the campus and the Loudonville PO is several miles away! Go to the Colonie, New York article and look at the 1866 map of Watervliet (the name of Colonie before it was Colonie) and see the big bold letters of New Tonville P.O. they go right over where Siena College is today. Then look much lower on the map to where Loudonville is. I'm sure that wont meet your approval either. But just sit back and objectively look at the all the evidence, Newtonville for the address of the town hall across the street, the Newtonville Park is across the street as well, the Newtonville Methodist Church less than a mile away, the Mapquest source, the New York magazine source, the information on ZIP code that explains the difference between ZIP codes and where a place is, and the other information I have begged you to consider. It all adds up together to a convincing argument. If you really think an admin will walk in here and just go by what you are saying "they need a source, I have a source, they dont" and then look at all this information...if they side with you, good, I wont complain I will go on, I lost...but really do you think they'll ignore all this evidence? Admins became admins for a good reason, they look outside the box and use common sense. I tried to compromise with you by saying that Loudonville is the PO and Newtonville is the hamlet. Why is that not good enough? I can further compromise on just saying Colonie is the town, and leave it at that, with no mentioning of Loudonville or Newtonville. Camelbinky ( talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)addendum, I have gone ahead and asked one of the admins who is a member of the Capital District wikiproject to please go ahead and review the argument on the article page and our talk pages. I have asked only for an unbiased opinion on what argument seems logical based on the evidence, I for one will abide by whatever position he believes is logical and consistent with wikipedia. I would like to know if anyone else feels that they can live with the decision whatever way it falls? Camelbinky ( talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned in one of my "lenghty tirades" I have contacted an admin about this issue. You can see their response on my talk page under the Siena College section. Since that admin. seems to agree that it is resonable to say Siena is in Newtonville I will now ask the admin. what steps I may take to make sure that I may add that information to the article without you reverting it. If an admin says I can put info in who do you think you are to remove it? You are not the source king of wikipedia. Please stop trolling pages and disrupting articles you know nothing about. You admit you dont wish to do research or learn. You try applying wikipedia guidelines as if they are steadfast laws with no regard to circumstances. Camelbinky ( talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just as you say you have no wish to read about ZIP codes I have no wish to read WP:CIVIL (as I have already read most wikipedia guidelines already, I know what they say, I have alot of free time at the computer at work). For my own curiousity and not insulting you in anyway I would like you to explain how you were "cleaning up what was already there" when I had Newtonville there first and then you put in Loudonville after it my Newtonville edit had a who? tag put on it. You didnt give me time to cite the Newtonville reference. I am dropping this because as Wadester stated a WRONG piece of information properly cited unfortunately gets priority over the TRUTH. BUT I hope you please understand that at least you are wrong about the information! If you learn anything about anything from this article. And as for you claiming what you do is not trolling and is merely "an interest in making the articles I contribute to as verifiable as possible" please show me one contribution (other than this Loudonville fiasco) you have made to Siena College. Not an insult to outsiders contributing, simply my curiousity. What do you know about Siena other than what you have to look up first? Or about the town of Colonie and its hamlets, have you ever driven by it even? I'm just curious. If you havent it doesnt mean that you dont have a right to contribute. I am sorry I do rant. That's a flaw I have. It is verifiable as well. Perhaps I can find an offline source or do more digging and find something you will approve. I hope in the future I can approach you for help on what is a legitimate source. Camelbinky ( talk) 11:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for writing and clarifying. Don't worry, I would not feel comfortable blocking you in this situation; I'd let another admin make the call. My complaint about your sarcastic statement was the one you called "groupthink" after writing a version of the sentence that was clearly not going to be included in the article. I really thought that was a bit much.
Anyway, yes in retrospect the summary of the arguments is probably a little slanted (please, this is my first time writing an article RFC). I do feel the strongest aspect of it is the college's ZIP Code, and if I am able to see the map and it shows Siena's campus within that ZIP code, I think that may just settle it. (I'd note too, that the former headquarters of NYSP Troop G across Route 9 is described as being in Loudonville as well). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that the sources that I inserted are not independent sources but they are reliable sources and I am a great believer that Wiki must be extensively sourced. I inserted the section on academic results myself several years ago to give some sense of balance to an article which goes on at length about drugs, air pistols etc. The insertion of that piece was undertaken after considerable research (in the absence of cuttings from the actual newspapers of the time) and it seems a bit weak to delete those sources just because they are not independent. Please can I respectfully suggest that it is important that the sources are not lost just in case anybody else wishes to go back to the sources from which I obtained the information? Dormskirk ( talk) 09:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Martin Sheen about the nationality argument, I'd appreciate your input. Best, – Toon (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, you're at 3RR on Siena College. I know both sides are discussing this on the talk page (I'm also leaving a warning on the other reverter's page), but please don't edit war, even while talking it over. Good luck on the talk page. Dayewalker ( talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
So, what do you think? Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tag. Administrative divisions of New York could use some improvement, especially in the way of references. I've added it to my list of priorities. I wanted to drop a quick note about a reference I just added to the town section. It's not enough on its own to substantiate the statement made; I still need more sources to back it up. It cites a part of the Consolidated Laws, which basically says if a town dissolves, it has to be annexed into another town. I still have to find sources to demonstrate that places within a city or indian reservation are not within a town, and that all parts of a county not within a city or indian reservation are within a town. So I'm working on it. If you'd rather I didn't keep you up-to-date as to what I'm doing with this article, just let me know and I'll wait until you have specific questions. -- JBC3 ( talk) 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to offer my services, if they are wanted, for working on Administrative divisions of New York. I am, with no ego intended nor insult towards others, an expert on the topic. I do have some concerns about certain judgements made in the article (the statement to the effect that towns in NY are similar to townships in other states is not at all a correct assumption or analogy or whatever it was intended to convey, its a misrepresentation of what towns in NY do and what townships are in other states). I could use help in finding suitable citations and what is acceptable as I dont know if the textbooks I use in the undergrad courses I TA will be acceptable or "original research". I know there will be lots of sources out there that are not technical or comprehensive on the topic (and they have lots of bad info or poorly worded interpretations) and I dont want to get into an argument of what is correct vs. what is said in the majority of sources someone finds if those sources outnumber the truth in what is taught in a poli sci class. I am passionate (though I take offence at "misguided") about the topic of Admn. div. of NY and if that will annoy or cause problems with other editors I will stay out of the article. Camelbinky ( talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC) And for the record I have never in the past (to the best of my recollection) ever edited to the article.
Thank you, I hope that if we collaborate and find common ground that we can mend any fences that may have been broken (mostly by me) in the previous argument. I have found that is the best way to make a wiki-friend, it worked for Doncram and I after butting heads on two articles we worked together on one and now I often turn to him for advice on articles. I will start putting what I know on the talk page and if you have anytime and can help I would appreciate any pointers on where to possibly find online sources for these tidbits of knowledge, as that is often easier to cite on wikipedia for others to see and verify than a hardcopy book (and I would prefer not to have to flip through many different books and re-read them just to find the specific info if it is at all quicker to do a google search or whatever). Camelbinky ( talk) 06:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted 5 times in a few hours. That is a violation of WP:3RR. Please discuss rather than reverting. Rracecarr ( talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey what are you doing there, there is a procedure for the presentation sentence of the players, you are doing a vandalism...-- 87.20.94.46 ( talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Man just read the discussion page, you are making a mistake...-- 87.20.94.46 ( talk) 17:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is the vandalism on the Giuseppe Rossi page? Explain your point on the discission page if you have one.-- 87.20.94.46 ( talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, what is your problem with the giuseppe Rossi page? Do you think he is not an Italian football player? Maybe you don't now that he is a member of the Italian national team? Stop with your nationalistic edit.-- 80.117.16.245 ( talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Re-read what you edited and then Doncram had to remove on the Loudonville article. You called Loudonville a town. Wadester warned you before you made that edit that it wasnt a town when you made that claim on the Siena page. Wadester warned you again on the Loudonville talk page. I stand by my statement and if you have anything else to say to me bring it up in talk page discussion as I do not wish for you to edit at my user talk page. I will do the same. Thank you. Camelbinky ( talk) 20:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, I dont wish for you to edit at my talk page, please respect that. A user's talk page is their own space and an editor does have the right to ask another editor to not edit on it, it is not an article talk page or an article or wiki-space. Anyways- Siena College has a quiet campus in Loudonville, a small town in upstate New York. Are you denying that is in the edit you made? It's on the number four edit you put on my talk page. It doesnt matter if its within a quote from the source you put in, you put it in there. I think you should also stick to the proper cite web citation template for your citations and leave out quotes in a citation, that is just opinion but one that I have found is usually asked for when articles go to peer review or GA/A/or FA promotion review. Demanding an apology is rude. You have constantly berated me for being long-winded and going off on things you dont think are relevant, as I have stated somewhere else just now I have asperger's syndrome and other disorders related to having a disorder on the autism spectrum, but I have never told you how I feel about those comments and about my disorder and I never demanded an apology, because this is wikipedia not high school (no offence if you are in high school, I know nothing about you and cant tell from discussion but have guessed you are from Texas, conservative, lean-Republican but probably not registered as an independent, believe in strict constructionism in relation to the US Constitution, if I'm wrong I would love to hear more about you). You have gotten under my skin but I have never asked for an apology. I will give you as many apologies as you want about anything you want if you just compromise on the article saying "Siena College is in the town of Colonie, with Loudonville as its mailing address", or something to that effect. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the points you have made in this debate, and as you have no doubt seen I broadly agree with your position and favor removal of unverifiable claims that something is a common misconception. Note that it was I who nominated this article for deletion in its most recent AFD for the basic reason that I consider it an indiscriminate collection of information. Given that it survived the AFD on the premise that 'common misconception' is a unifying subject, I consider it of the utmost importance that this be sourced for each list item. Furthermore, there is clearly a great sense of 'ownership' of this article among those who have added to it, making it difficult to productively discuss large changes.
All that aside, however, given that the article survived AFD and given that it could use much improvement, I'd like to help make it as 'Wikipedic' as possible. I am concerned about the present tone of the conversation - it is argumentative, unproductive, and seem likely to stymie progress and lead to more edit wars and the need for escalating outside mediation. Given that we seem to represent the vocal part of 'one side' of the debate, it is my hope that we can take some steps to improve the dialogue.
I have a few thoughts. First, as frustrating as the situation is, its important to remember and make clear in debate that we know that the 'other side' is also acting in good faith. Even if they are highly incorrect from our view, they are doing what they think will improve the article. Also, I think perhaps we could incline them somewhat more towards cooperation if we demonstrate that we are making a good faith effort to look for adequate references for material before removing it. Certainly it is not incumbent upon us to do this, but in the spirit of cooperation and of trying to improve the article, we could perhaps make sure to do at least a reasonable google search for supporting references before deleting and moving to the talk page. I believe that most of these items would still be deleted, but we very well might find a few that could stay - a worthwhile outcome. Furthermore, the possibility of seeing us contributing to keeping items as well as removing them, and our ability to honestly assert that we are making a good faith effort to find references, might do a lot to defuse the situation and bring make the dialogue more constructive. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this, and I'll 'watch' your talk page accordingly. Thanks, Locke9k ( talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Irregardless of my apology or not, PLEASE refrain posting on my talk page ever. This is your final warning. If you have something to say to me, make sure it is related to an article and post it to the appropriate discussion page of that article. I only edit under IP addresses as well now, Camelbinky is retired, and the IP addresses I use are not always me as they are shared computers, at home with my family or at work with my co-workers; all of whom enjoy wikipedia and I am sure would not like you assuming they are always me. Thank you. Camelbinky ( talk) 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Careful. You've both hit WP:3RR. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
How about actually trying to discuss your changes prior to deleting away at the article? It's incredible how you are deleting references when it's obvious you've never read the sources. Tkguy ( talk) 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hippo43 — I think that both alternatives that are suggested by the Manual of Style are problematic in this case. I haven't really done research, but I assume that Ramón Gerardo Antonio Estévez would be called Martin Sheen both on and off stage (unlike Slim Pickens, the example given in the policy section). The other alternative is problematic, as it's not clear whether the legal name has actually changed or not. The problem with the first alternative is also that it looks as if Wikipedia would be an place of investigative journalism, or as if Martin Sheen had something to hide about his past. Cs32en 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Your changes are generalised without reference to links. Deleting text is seen as vandalism without providing evidence for the reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 ( talk) 11:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Where do you get the facts that it is most common to South Africa? This is not true and generalised! Kaffer is an Afrikaans word that means the man of the Bantoe nation. It is a word accepted and in all dictionaries. Using the word kaffer also doesn't lead to court action and will not result in a court case. This is a false statement and misleading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 ( talk) 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Use the discussion section before deleting away complete articles that are referenced to researched sites and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 ( talk) 11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hippo43,
I reverted your recent edits because during that copy-editings you shifted some accents, introduced dead links and even misinterpreted some sources. For example, you version states "Although before the war the
Red Army was preparing for a
strategic offensive of its own,
[1] Barbarossa forced the
Soviet supreme command to adopt a
strategic defence. "
This statement is not supported by the source. In actuality, the source (Cynthia A. Roberts) states:"Nevertheless, the Red Army maintained the posture of a powerful and agile organis- ation in June 1941, expecting to launch rapid and powerful counter-offensives against a German invasion force."(page 1294). This is a direct misinterpretation of the source, whereas the old version ("Although before the war the
Red Army was preparing for a
strategic counter-offensive,
[2] "Barbarossa"' forced
Soviet supreme command to adopt a
strategic defence. ") reflected the source correctly.
Unfortunatelly, I cannot provide the detailed analysis of all changes made by you right now. To my opinion, it would be better to do what I did before, namely, to copy the whole section to the talk page, to discuss all changes there and, after consensus is achieved, transfer the modified version to the article.
I believe, the style of the article can be improved and I appreciate your attempts to do that. However, we have to avoid factual errors during that process.
Sinecerely,--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hippo43. You probably noticed that some other sections of the WWII article also need some improvement. I propose to discuss "The tide turns" and "Axis collapse" sections. What do you think about that?
Regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I am just wondering your opinions on potential taking things about the article to admins or something similar as it appears seekerfortruth initally intentions to improve have changed to want to make the article a fansite that brags about rangers, (although i am fan i know what wikipeida is about to) they appear to be either copyvoiltion when adding things and appear to go against conesensus on things and it really annoying to keep repeating the same thing to them-- Andy Chat c 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
While you may well be correct removing unsourced material, the article is being worked on at present. Rodhull andemu 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a great opportunity to merge the excellent work done on the "inaccuracies" page into the film article's Production section and make it even better. 71.171.109.2 ( talk) 12:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you show where in a source they use the term "some" when referring to the character composites? I suspect you put in "some" because you thought that there was a one-to-one correspondence between Bartlett and Bushell. We don't know that, and that may well be incorrect since the film makers may have introduced aspects into Bartlett that belong to POWs other than Bushell. I think the best any of the analysts can honestly say is that Bartlett is mainly based on Bushell because they don't know whether other POWs were used too. The most authoritative statement in this regard is the statement in the film itself that says that the characters are composites. Would you agree to the removal of "some"? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed in your recent edit summary, re the number of escapees, that you wrote "the source doesn't point out the difference between film & reality". It did! And I indicated in my edit summary where you could find it. Here's the exact quote from the source, "The plan was to get 200 men out of the camp (not the 250 stated in the movie)." I agree with the deletion of that paragraph and I agree with merging the significant parts of the "accuracy" wiki with the film wiki, but I'm concerned with your style, viz. the edit warring behavior regarding "some" and not carefully checking the source re 200/250. Regards, -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you been posting as this IP? So far it hasn't caused me any significant problems but if you are, you should disclose it because otherwise editors may think that there are 2 editors with similar opinions instead of one, and that can affect the perception of consensus. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I undid a few of your edits to the X title. You removed information that was accurate as well. The championship is a world championship and world heavyweight championship is the only link I have to represent that.-- Will C 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"minor changes and fixing problems." Your edits were not these. They were disruptive. You removed information and sources I may add from an article that was under debate and a GA review. If you were rewriting a few small problems, I would understand. But removing an entire section against what seemed to be two editors agreeing against one nearing a consensus on whether or not that section was OR. In the MoS it states not all statements must have a ref. None of my claims were unbelievable. They were common sense because you could see, that is why the image is in the article. Which would remove the OR from the subject. Since Millcan owns that site and he is a creator of championships which includes the X Title, I was using it to help source something he created. It is not a news site so fact checking doesn't come into play. He does not publish information either. Not all sites must be well known nor do they have to be respected. I don't respect tons of sites, so I guess little oh me makes the New York Times unreliable. I'll go off and remove them from all articles now like you. I've established he is reliable. Being the creator and backed by TNA Wrestling as the creator, he is reliable.-- Will C 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I ask of you please, before you do anything to the article ask me. You do not know what the refs cover or what is important and what isn't. The promotion makes a title world. There is no governing body in pro wrestling to give world status. The 2002 ref covers two of the sources for names. I added a ref for the third because I forgot to earlier. I add two or three new sources to show the belt is new and re-added the designs section. Here is a link to show that Millcan is covered by third party reliable sources: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1179437910.shtml. Yes you don't have to ask me, but when you don't know shit about what you are working on you should.-- Will C 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
See professional wrestling is not a legit sport and has a different frame of mind. When a championship is announced as being of the world, it means the company considers it a world championship. There is no higher body in professional wrestling to give a championship world status, besides the company. So it is not unsourced commentary and with the ref it is already sourced. The only reason those notes are there, is because of that. Plus Borash was special guest ring announcer because Borash is not the regular announcer. David Penzer is. Borash quit being it in 2004.-- Will C 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
← And I rightfully understand your frustration. As such, I would be willing to help resolve this dispute once your block expires. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify how you correlate opinion and unreferenced to the removed article? Wullie smoking is available in print so anyone with access to them can see the changes over the years - Oor Wullie is the reference. I don't feel the section was a point of 'opinion' - more fact. Unless someone has copies of every late 20th and 21st century strip, it's not possible to cite that Wullie did not steal his Pa's pipe last week - but it is possible to reference strips where he did. I'm happy to add those if you feel the need. Forthbridge ( talk) 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok - thanks for that. I'll try and source before any changes in future, and if not 'keep quiet' Forthbridge ( talk) 17:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. Any further disruption will likely result in a block. Thank you. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been
blocked for a period of 24 hours for
edit warring on on both
List of TNA X Division Champions &
TNA X Division Championship. It is essential that you are more careful to
discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply
revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. If you agree to stop edit warring, and take the issue to talk pages I am more than willing to unblock. To contest this block please place {{
unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk
03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping maybe we can come to an agreement to end our disagreement. I don't plan to renominate the X Title for FAC for maybe a week. I'm going to work on the prose and sourcing problems in a subpage, seeing as you are correct there are problems in those areas. If you would be so kind, to leave me a lists of problems you believe on my talk page? I would like to end our disagreements regrading the TNA X Division Championship and List of TNA X Division Champions articles.-- Will C 03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sorry about that. I had restored that based on a secondhand reference from User:OCEAN...but I only put the source in the edit summary (as reported in Tim S. Grover's book "Jump Attack" per User:OCEAN)), which had long since scrolled off the history.
So, do you feel that is a valid source for the information? -- Syrthiss 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Good call - I don't have a copy myself, but I intended to check that book - if anyone, Grover should know. Being cynical, he has a vested interest in talking up Jordan's vertical, but we're unlikely to find a better source.
Hippo43
19:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted Jacrosse's edits to Neoconservatism in the United States for the ninth time and protected the article. I also filed a request for comment on the edit conflict. He seems to have an aversion to discussing the concerns that you, I, Jmabel, and TDC raised on the talk page. What do you think can be done to bring him around? — thames 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the slow reply - I have no idea what to do with someone like that, other than somehow getting rid of them. Seems able to ruin an article single-handedly and I just don't have the time to watch out for it.
Hippo43
19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there. I reverted your edits as they appeared to be leading the reader to believe that Celtic Park is 5 star by giving more bias to one line on the UEFA news site. Whilst I would generally agree that the UEFA site is a better source for this type of information than the other link provided. The problem with the UEFA link is that at the time of publication the information was definitely incorrect.
[ http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2003_Report.pdf] - Celtic state that they need to do work to make their stadium 5 star.
[1] - Hampdens official site mentions Ibrox and Hampden as being 5 star. [2] - Evening Times article published after UEFA news article says Celtic were planning to do work. All of this, especially the first link, would confirm that Celtic Park was not a 5star stadium when the UEFA article was published, therefore it is inaccurate. -- Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Neither of your sources carry much weight - an Evening Times article dated 2003 about Celtic's plans for the next year and a POV piece about Hampden ["there is not a ground in Britain that has comparable facilities"??] are hardly reputable sources. While you may well be correct, until someone provides a genuine UEFA source for this, it will remain unresolved.
However, you removed a paragraph of detail about Celtic Park which had nothing to do with the 5-star issue, and gave no explanation of either change in your edit summary. Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. Hippo43 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star. As for the source about Hampden, it comes from the official site for Hampden, Scotlands national stadium, it obviously will talk up its own facilities this does not make it POV, unless you are claiming that the SFA have a conspiracy to lead people to believe that Celtic park is not 5star? -- Roy Biv ( talk • contribs )
You wrote:- "Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. ", I only reverted your biased POV edits. You are missing the point of Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, you do not own articles. -- Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
My edits were neither biased or POV - I have frequently stated that I want to get to the bottom of this with a current, reliable source, and that you may well be correct. Hampden's official website is clearly POV - it is intended to promote Hampden, contains obvious hype, and cannot be relied upon to provide accurate info on other stadia.
Giving no sources or edit summaries for your contributions on these sorts of topics can cause edit wars which can make this encyclopedia pretty useless. You removed a paragraph of info on the various parts of the stadium that had nothing to do with 5-star status, presumably because you didn't check everything that had been added after the edit that you disagreed with. I do understand the point of wikipedia - I don't claim to own articles, or my own contribution to them, but you have been arbitrarily removing people's work without explanation, which is definitely not the point. I only asked you (politely) to follow protocol here and use courtesy if you are editing my (or anyone else's) work.
Your first sentence above - "I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star." - doesn't make much sense. Can you clarify what you mean? Hippo43 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
My issue with you removing my other edits is that you seem to have an attitude about me not knowing what "the point of wikipedia is" - I simply asked you to be careful about what you remove and give explanations for it. I note you have since edited the Donald Findlay article several times without explanation, so I'm obviously not making it up. Above, you wrote that I "obviously make POV edits" - which ones do you mean? You say you found my edits "deliberately misleading" but don't say why.
As for your conspiracy theory, I haven't said any such thing about the Hampden site - I said simply that its role is to promote Hampden, and not to give accurate info on any other stadia. The tone of the article is clearly promoting Hampden, and so is essentially an advert for Hampden, not a site which can be relied upon for accurate, up-to-date info on other facilities in Glasgow.
As for the Celtic report from 2003, it is clearly now out of date - the 2004 report from Celtic ( http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2004_Report.pdf) also mentions work on stadium improvement, so I figure we need an up-to-date source from somewhere to confirm the status either way. Do you know of a source from the last 2 years which confirms the status of Celtic Park now? Again, you may be right, but arguing over sources from 2003 doesn't sort this out one way or the other. Hippo43 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hippo43. I made reference to your excellent contributions on this subject at Talk:Graeme Souness recently. The current thread is at Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Signing_policy. Thanks if you are able to help. -- Guinnog 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've contributed to the Keele University article a few times. Assuming you're alumni you may be interested in this: Template:User Keele Grunners ( talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
When the press, and, indeed, Tatler's School Guide, refer to Fettes as the "Eton of the North" they're complementing the school's exceedingly strong reputation. This is not something to shy away from. Therefore, even if you didn't attend Fettes, as a proud Scotsman, you should be flattered that our country hosts one of the finest Public Schools in the UK. As far as I see it, who are you to decide what Fettes post on their page? You clearly have no attachment to the school, only resentment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Western Province ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
See reply here - Talk:Fettes_College#.27Eton_of_the_North.27_.26_other_schools hippo43 ( talk) 22:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If you'd care to update the article in question with some reliable sources which back up your changes to Ibrox Stadium's classification (namely, the complete removal of such info), that would be great. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The existing sources at UEFA_elite_stadium look solid to me. The old 4- and 5-star classification doesn't exist any more, so I removed the out of date material, making the Ibrox article more accurate. To the best of my knowledge, Ibrox has not been assessed as an Elite stadium - if someone thinks it has, they will no doubt be able to provide a source confirming that. hippo43 ( talk) 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Thabo Mbeki appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
core policies. Thank you. For ridiculous over tagging.
Verbal
chat
19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"non-neutral point of view"? What are you talking about? If you object to specific tags, then find sources or re-write the material. The article is a mess, and you've done nothing to help improve it. hippo43 ( talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you have recently removed a section from Mizuno Corp. I agree that much of the list is probably non notable, and there is no doubt is was random, but some of it is notable and could be salvaged. Perhaps inserting a {{ cleanup}} tag would be better? bigissue ( talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, when exactly did Michael Jordan wear #5? The Pan-American Games? Thanks, Zagalejo ^^^ 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hippo43, don't take it as ofensive, I am not going to disrupt your work on the Michael Jordan's article, as I am personally interested in making it better, too. It's just the quest for perfection, you see. I don't know anything at all about the NBA, I've just tagged all sentenced that seemed POV-ed for me. However, I've felt bold enough to restore some of the {{ citation needed}} templates you've removed. I hope that won't harm the article and you (or other Wikipedians) will find proper sources for the yet-untagged sentences. This is 2 AM in Poland, so I am not going to edit the article in a couple of hours—feel free to edit it the way you like. I'll have a look at it in the morning. Have a good day (you're out of the UTC, I take it?) :-) Tomasz W. Kozłowski ( talk) 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Kevin (
talk)
07:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)I was going to warn you for 3rr and then saw you had just come off a block for it and gone straight back to edit-warring. Your next block is likely to be for longer should you continue. Please don't edit-war but instead abide by consensus. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hippo. I believe you have to make a neutral statement on the request for comment on the section concerned. If you were already going to do so then ignore this message. Cheers. Jack forbes ( talk) 21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. I'm probably going to piss you off now. :) As`you requested the comment I think it would be better to elaborate on the statement to allow those coming in cold to get a good idea of the opposing views and reasons for those views. Two or three lines would normally suffice. Cheers. Jack forbes ( talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The existing position on this article was that geography followed politics. A proposal to reverse them DID NOT achieve consensus and the default position until consensus is reached is for geography to come first. Please make your case on the talk page rather than simply asserting a position that you know to be controversial. -- Snowded ( talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that it can be said not to be current. It is rare in the UK except in the phrase "rugger bugger" but the Yanks seem to use "rugger" and even use it to mean "rugby player" as well.
It is also true what Haldraper said about rugby league being known as "rugby" in the North of England though I think your edit is okay because it wouldn't be wrong to call rugby union "rugby" even in the North. GordyB ( talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand you are trying to help on the Siena College article, but I do question your edit taking out mention that there is a dispute as to the location of the college. There is a dispute and I would like it if you talked to me about your opinions or use the discussion page of the article. While you are right as to the MAILING address of the college this is due to the fact that the actual ZIP code that Siena College resides in (Newtonville) is one of those post offices that has PO Boxes ONLY and does not deliver mail. Residents and businesses that would like home delivery must ask the Loudonville Post Office for delivery, and therefore must use their ZIP code and name for home delivery, but can not get a PO box at the Loudonville PO. You can, and there are probably many instances of this, have a location that has home delivery inbetween two locations that have only PO Boxes that use Newtonville addressed. The Newtonville Park is directly across the street from the college, the Newtonville Post Office is about 100 yards up the street (probably considerably less), and the Newtonville Church(Methodist I think) is less than a 1/4 mile up the road. There is the Newton Plaza and Newton Plaza II up the road, and many businesses that use the Newton name, and the Pruyn House, a historical museum is usually listed as being in Newtonville.(from the official town of Colonie website- mail going to the Pruyn House to P.O. Box 212 Newtonville, NY 12128 but the address is 207 Old Niskayuna Road) Newtonville is labeled by a state DOT sign when going south out of Latham on Route 9 towards Siena College. Newtonville can be found on mapquest and area maps such as those published by Jimapco. As a compromise I propose saying the college is in the hamlet of Newtonville but has a Loudonville mailing address. There are apartments and a shopping plaza within the city of Albany that have Loudonville addresses but are still within the city of Albany, ZIP codes arent the determining factor of where a location resides. If it was then no location in the incorporated village of Menands, New York can be put in the Menands article (including its own village hall) because they all uses an Albany ZIP code. At least Newtonville actually does have a Post Office. Round Lake, New York which is an incorporated village has the same exact problem as Newtonville, its post office only does PO boxes, I am unsure who does local delivery. I hope this clears up any confusion about Newtonville and I believe part of your reasoning had something to do with notability..I hope the businesses and locations that use the Newtonville name along with the DOT sign on Route 9 help on that account, along with the fact that it does have an article (albeit a stub), I can expand the Newtonville article when I get a chance if that is part of the problem. Camelbinky ( talk) 02:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC) addendum- The Colonie Town Hall is listed on the official town website as being at 534 New Loudon Road, Newtonville, New York; it is directly across the street from the college...unless you proposing that the hamlet boundary between Loudonville and Newtonville goes down tmhe middle of Route 9 (New Loudon Road) then I think this should be definitive proof of what HAMLET the college is in regardless of its ZIP code. Camelbinky ( talk) 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I know you didn't add the {{who?}} tag. I never said you did. I respect that you are trying to maintain the notability and validity of information added to articles. However, your citation about the college being in Loudonville hamlet is not substantiated, because the source does not say Loudonville hamlet specifically, merely Loudonville, which could refer to the ZIP code. There are many places that have a mailing address that doesn't match up with their physical location. Gansevoort NY, for example, is a hamlet in the town of Northumberland. But because there is a ZIP code that uses Gansevoort as a mailing address, people in the towns of Northumberland, Wilton, and Moreau have a Gansevoort mailing address. It would be factually inaccurate to say that someone in the town of Moreau lives in the hamlet of Gansevoort simply because they have a Gansevoort mailing address. Two more examples: West Mountain Ski Area says it is in Glens Falls NY. The Great Escape and Splashwater Kingdom says it is in Lake George. But that is by ZIP code. Actually both are in the town of Queensbury. I feel that there is insufficient evidence thus far to support either Loudonville or Newtonville as the hamlet containing Siena College. -- JBC3 ( talk) 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you think, if the Postal Address (Loudonville) and Physical Address (Colonie) were both left in the infobox that the Location section could be removed all together? -- JBC3 ( talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Me the vandal? The article said Newtonville first. You changed it to Loudonville and continued to put it after sources were put in per your request. You didnt even discuss your change or your issues until I asked that you would, and then instead of waiting to compromise or a consensus amongst users in the discusion page you continued to change it. It should have been left alone until a consensus. So far there is one in favor of Newtonville as the hamlet and Loudonville as the ZIP code, one in favor of just Loudonville, and one in favor of "no consensus at this moment" (if I am correct as to JBC3's position). I am able to live with JBC3's position, that makes it 2-1. I think the best thing to do is for JBC3, since JBC3's position is the most neutral I suggest that JBC3 send this to the proper place for an admin to come in and look at all the available positions and content and decide on the best course of action. I strongly urge you, Hippo, to read ZIP code and Administrative divisions of New York and learn about ZIP codes and hamlets. You are basing your opinion on "you must have a source that comes out and says it" and that you are trying to keep the "integrity" of sources. I suggest that instead of just finding sources and medling in articles you dont know about that first you talk to people who know the area, know the intricacies, inconsistancies, and quirks of the area and topic. I know you are well-meaning and doing this in good-faith. But ALL guidelines in wikipedia are just that, guidelines, there are no hard fast rules, all have the disclaimer at the top that they are to be taken with "common sense" and that there are exceptions and times to bend them and times they just dont apply. Your view that these are not "reliable" sources is ridiculous. Mapquest is reliable for other articles, I dont need to have a specific citation from a "rulebook" (which wikipedia guidelines specifically state there is NO RULEBOOK) for it to be accepted. It has already been accepted by the wikipedia community. As for New York Magazine, are you kidding?! New York (magazine) is not a reliable source?! Then I guess neither is US News & World Report or any other weekly magazine (though USN&WR is now a monthly, not a weekly). It has its own wikipedia article! So the magazine is notable enough to get an article but not good enough to be a source. I forget the other source you had a problem with. And as I showed you and had in the article, the post office allows for Siena to be the city name on the address for the college! So if you are going to say that Loudonville is the hamlet or the ZIP code or whatever you want to say, then I am within my rights to use the USPS official website to show that the name Siena is also the hamlet it is within. But I guess you will claim the United State Postal Service is not a reliable source. Whatever I put as a source you will claim is not reliable. I have put forth many reasons, and so has JBC3 as to why ZIP codes and hamlets are not the same and the problem. I have shown you that the town hall of Colonie directly across the street is itself in the hamlet of Newtonville according to the town itself! Hamlets dont just start on one side of the street like that! The Newtonville PO is within a 2 min walk from the campus and the Loudonville PO is several miles away! Go to the Colonie, New York article and look at the 1866 map of Watervliet (the name of Colonie before it was Colonie) and see the big bold letters of New Tonville P.O. they go right over where Siena College is today. Then look much lower on the map to where Loudonville is. I'm sure that wont meet your approval either. But just sit back and objectively look at the all the evidence, Newtonville for the address of the town hall across the street, the Newtonville Park is across the street as well, the Newtonville Methodist Church less than a mile away, the Mapquest source, the New York magazine source, the information on ZIP code that explains the difference between ZIP codes and where a place is, and the other information I have begged you to consider. It all adds up together to a convincing argument. If you really think an admin will walk in here and just go by what you are saying "they need a source, I have a source, they dont" and then look at all this information...if they side with you, good, I wont complain I will go on, I lost...but really do you think they'll ignore all this evidence? Admins became admins for a good reason, they look outside the box and use common sense. I tried to compromise with you by saying that Loudonville is the PO and Newtonville is the hamlet. Why is that not good enough? I can further compromise on just saying Colonie is the town, and leave it at that, with no mentioning of Loudonville or Newtonville. Camelbinky ( talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)addendum, I have gone ahead and asked one of the admins who is a member of the Capital District wikiproject to please go ahead and review the argument on the article page and our talk pages. I have asked only for an unbiased opinion on what argument seems logical based on the evidence, I for one will abide by whatever position he believes is logical and consistent with wikipedia. I would like to know if anyone else feels that they can live with the decision whatever way it falls? Camelbinky ( talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned in one of my "lenghty tirades" I have contacted an admin about this issue. You can see their response on my talk page under the Siena College section. Since that admin. seems to agree that it is resonable to say Siena is in Newtonville I will now ask the admin. what steps I may take to make sure that I may add that information to the article without you reverting it. If an admin says I can put info in who do you think you are to remove it? You are not the source king of wikipedia. Please stop trolling pages and disrupting articles you know nothing about. You admit you dont wish to do research or learn. You try applying wikipedia guidelines as if they are steadfast laws with no regard to circumstances. Camelbinky ( talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just as you say you have no wish to read about ZIP codes I have no wish to read WP:CIVIL (as I have already read most wikipedia guidelines already, I know what they say, I have alot of free time at the computer at work). For my own curiousity and not insulting you in anyway I would like you to explain how you were "cleaning up what was already there" when I had Newtonville there first and then you put in Loudonville after it my Newtonville edit had a who? tag put on it. You didnt give me time to cite the Newtonville reference. I am dropping this because as Wadester stated a WRONG piece of information properly cited unfortunately gets priority over the TRUTH. BUT I hope you please understand that at least you are wrong about the information! If you learn anything about anything from this article. And as for you claiming what you do is not trolling and is merely "an interest in making the articles I contribute to as verifiable as possible" please show me one contribution (other than this Loudonville fiasco) you have made to Siena College. Not an insult to outsiders contributing, simply my curiousity. What do you know about Siena other than what you have to look up first? Or about the town of Colonie and its hamlets, have you ever driven by it even? I'm just curious. If you havent it doesnt mean that you dont have a right to contribute. I am sorry I do rant. That's a flaw I have. It is verifiable as well. Perhaps I can find an offline source or do more digging and find something you will approve. I hope in the future I can approach you for help on what is a legitimate source. Camelbinky ( talk) 11:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for writing and clarifying. Don't worry, I would not feel comfortable blocking you in this situation; I'd let another admin make the call. My complaint about your sarcastic statement was the one you called "groupthink" after writing a version of the sentence that was clearly not going to be included in the article. I really thought that was a bit much.
Anyway, yes in retrospect the summary of the arguments is probably a little slanted (please, this is my first time writing an article RFC). I do feel the strongest aspect of it is the college's ZIP Code, and if I am able to see the map and it shows Siena's campus within that ZIP code, I think that may just settle it. (I'd note too, that the former headquarters of NYSP Troop G across Route 9 is described as being in Loudonville as well). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that the sources that I inserted are not independent sources but they are reliable sources and I am a great believer that Wiki must be extensively sourced. I inserted the section on academic results myself several years ago to give some sense of balance to an article which goes on at length about drugs, air pistols etc. The insertion of that piece was undertaken after considerable research (in the absence of cuttings from the actual newspapers of the time) and it seems a bit weak to delete those sources just because they are not independent. Please can I respectfully suggest that it is important that the sources are not lost just in case anybody else wishes to go back to the sources from which I obtained the information? Dormskirk ( talk) 09:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Martin Sheen about the nationality argument, I'd appreciate your input. Best, – Toon (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, you're at 3RR on Siena College. I know both sides are discussing this on the talk page (I'm also leaving a warning on the other reverter's page), but please don't edit war, even while talking it over. Good luck on the talk page. Dayewalker ( talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
So, what do you think? Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tag. Administrative divisions of New York could use some improvement, especially in the way of references. I've added it to my list of priorities. I wanted to drop a quick note about a reference I just added to the town section. It's not enough on its own to substantiate the statement made; I still need more sources to back it up. It cites a part of the Consolidated Laws, which basically says if a town dissolves, it has to be annexed into another town. I still have to find sources to demonstrate that places within a city or indian reservation are not within a town, and that all parts of a county not within a city or indian reservation are within a town. So I'm working on it. If you'd rather I didn't keep you up-to-date as to what I'm doing with this article, just let me know and I'll wait until you have specific questions. -- JBC3 ( talk) 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to offer my services, if they are wanted, for working on Administrative divisions of New York. I am, with no ego intended nor insult towards others, an expert on the topic. I do have some concerns about certain judgements made in the article (the statement to the effect that towns in NY are similar to townships in other states is not at all a correct assumption or analogy or whatever it was intended to convey, its a misrepresentation of what towns in NY do and what townships are in other states). I could use help in finding suitable citations and what is acceptable as I dont know if the textbooks I use in the undergrad courses I TA will be acceptable or "original research". I know there will be lots of sources out there that are not technical or comprehensive on the topic (and they have lots of bad info or poorly worded interpretations) and I dont want to get into an argument of what is correct vs. what is said in the majority of sources someone finds if those sources outnumber the truth in what is taught in a poli sci class. I am passionate (though I take offence at "misguided") about the topic of Admn. div. of NY and if that will annoy or cause problems with other editors I will stay out of the article. Camelbinky ( talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC) And for the record I have never in the past (to the best of my recollection) ever edited to the article.
Thank you, I hope that if we collaborate and find common ground that we can mend any fences that may have been broken (mostly by me) in the previous argument. I have found that is the best way to make a wiki-friend, it worked for Doncram and I after butting heads on two articles we worked together on one and now I often turn to him for advice on articles. I will start putting what I know on the talk page and if you have anytime and can help I would appreciate any pointers on where to possibly find online sources for these tidbits of knowledge, as that is often easier to cite on wikipedia for others to see and verify than a hardcopy book (and I would prefer not to have to flip through many different books and re-read them just to find the specific info if it is at all quicker to do a google search or whatever). Camelbinky ( talk) 06:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted 5 times in a few hours. That is a violation of WP:3RR. Please discuss rather than reverting. Rracecarr ( talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey what are you doing there, there is a procedure for the presentation sentence of the players, you are doing a vandalism...-- 87.20.94.46 ( talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Man just read the discussion page, you are making a mistake...-- 87.20.94.46 ( talk) 17:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is the vandalism on the Giuseppe Rossi page? Explain your point on the discission page if you have one.-- 87.20.94.46 ( talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, what is your problem with the giuseppe Rossi page? Do you think he is not an Italian football player? Maybe you don't now that he is a member of the Italian national team? Stop with your nationalistic edit.-- 80.117.16.245 ( talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Re-read what you edited and then Doncram had to remove on the Loudonville article. You called Loudonville a town. Wadester warned you before you made that edit that it wasnt a town when you made that claim on the Siena page. Wadester warned you again on the Loudonville talk page. I stand by my statement and if you have anything else to say to me bring it up in talk page discussion as I do not wish for you to edit at my user talk page. I will do the same. Thank you. Camelbinky ( talk) 20:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, I dont wish for you to edit at my talk page, please respect that. A user's talk page is their own space and an editor does have the right to ask another editor to not edit on it, it is not an article talk page or an article or wiki-space. Anyways- Siena College has a quiet campus in Loudonville, a small town in upstate New York. Are you denying that is in the edit you made? It's on the number four edit you put on my talk page. It doesnt matter if its within a quote from the source you put in, you put it in there. I think you should also stick to the proper cite web citation template for your citations and leave out quotes in a citation, that is just opinion but one that I have found is usually asked for when articles go to peer review or GA/A/or FA promotion review. Demanding an apology is rude. You have constantly berated me for being long-winded and going off on things you dont think are relevant, as I have stated somewhere else just now I have asperger's syndrome and other disorders related to having a disorder on the autism spectrum, but I have never told you how I feel about those comments and about my disorder and I never demanded an apology, because this is wikipedia not high school (no offence if you are in high school, I know nothing about you and cant tell from discussion but have guessed you are from Texas, conservative, lean-Republican but probably not registered as an independent, believe in strict constructionism in relation to the US Constitution, if I'm wrong I would love to hear more about you). You have gotten under my skin but I have never asked for an apology. I will give you as many apologies as you want about anything you want if you just compromise on the article saying "Siena College is in the town of Colonie, with Loudonville as its mailing address", or something to that effect. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the points you have made in this debate, and as you have no doubt seen I broadly agree with your position and favor removal of unverifiable claims that something is a common misconception. Note that it was I who nominated this article for deletion in its most recent AFD for the basic reason that I consider it an indiscriminate collection of information. Given that it survived the AFD on the premise that 'common misconception' is a unifying subject, I consider it of the utmost importance that this be sourced for each list item. Furthermore, there is clearly a great sense of 'ownership' of this article among those who have added to it, making it difficult to productively discuss large changes.
All that aside, however, given that the article survived AFD and given that it could use much improvement, I'd like to help make it as 'Wikipedic' as possible. I am concerned about the present tone of the conversation - it is argumentative, unproductive, and seem likely to stymie progress and lead to more edit wars and the need for escalating outside mediation. Given that we seem to represent the vocal part of 'one side' of the debate, it is my hope that we can take some steps to improve the dialogue.
I have a few thoughts. First, as frustrating as the situation is, its important to remember and make clear in debate that we know that the 'other side' is also acting in good faith. Even if they are highly incorrect from our view, they are doing what they think will improve the article. Also, I think perhaps we could incline them somewhat more towards cooperation if we demonstrate that we are making a good faith effort to look for adequate references for material before removing it. Certainly it is not incumbent upon us to do this, but in the spirit of cooperation and of trying to improve the article, we could perhaps make sure to do at least a reasonable google search for supporting references before deleting and moving to the talk page. I believe that most of these items would still be deleted, but we very well might find a few that could stay - a worthwhile outcome. Furthermore, the possibility of seeing us contributing to keeping items as well as removing them, and our ability to honestly assert that we are making a good faith effort to find references, might do a lot to defuse the situation and bring make the dialogue more constructive. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this, and I'll 'watch' your talk page accordingly. Thanks, Locke9k ( talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Irregardless of my apology or not, PLEASE refrain posting on my talk page ever. This is your final warning. If you have something to say to me, make sure it is related to an article and post it to the appropriate discussion page of that article. I only edit under IP addresses as well now, Camelbinky is retired, and the IP addresses I use are not always me as they are shared computers, at home with my family or at work with my co-workers; all of whom enjoy wikipedia and I am sure would not like you assuming they are always me. Thank you. Camelbinky ( talk) 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Careful. You've both hit WP:3RR. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
How about actually trying to discuss your changes prior to deleting away at the article? It's incredible how you are deleting references when it's obvious you've never read the sources. Tkguy ( talk) 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hippo43 — I think that both alternatives that are suggested by the Manual of Style are problematic in this case. I haven't really done research, but I assume that Ramón Gerardo Antonio Estévez would be called Martin Sheen both on and off stage (unlike Slim Pickens, the example given in the policy section). The other alternative is problematic, as it's not clear whether the legal name has actually changed or not. The problem with the first alternative is also that it looks as if Wikipedia would be an place of investigative journalism, or as if Martin Sheen had something to hide about his past. Cs32en 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Your changes are generalised without reference to links. Deleting text is seen as vandalism without providing evidence for the reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 ( talk) 11:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Where do you get the facts that it is most common to South Africa? This is not true and generalised! Kaffer is an Afrikaans word that means the man of the Bantoe nation. It is a word accepted and in all dictionaries. Using the word kaffer also doesn't lead to court action and will not result in a court case. This is a false statement and misleading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 ( talk) 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Use the discussion section before deleting away complete articles that are referenced to researched sites and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 ( talk) 11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hippo43,
I reverted your recent edits because during that copy-editings you shifted some accents, introduced dead links and even misinterpreted some sources. For example, you version states "Although before the war the
Red Army was preparing for a
strategic offensive of its own,
[1] Barbarossa forced the
Soviet supreme command to adopt a
strategic defence. "
This statement is not supported by the source. In actuality, the source (Cynthia A. Roberts) states:"Nevertheless, the Red Army maintained the posture of a powerful and agile organis- ation in June 1941, expecting to launch rapid and powerful counter-offensives against a German invasion force."(page 1294). This is a direct misinterpretation of the source, whereas the old version ("Although before the war the
Red Army was preparing for a
strategic counter-offensive,
[2] "Barbarossa"' forced
Soviet supreme command to adopt a
strategic defence. ") reflected the source correctly.
Unfortunatelly, I cannot provide the detailed analysis of all changes made by you right now. To my opinion, it would be better to do what I did before, namely, to copy the whole section to the talk page, to discuss all changes there and, after consensus is achieved, transfer the modified version to the article.
I believe, the style of the article can be improved and I appreciate your attempts to do that. However, we have to avoid factual errors during that process.
Sinecerely,--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hippo43. You probably noticed that some other sections of the WWII article also need some improvement. I propose to discuss "The tide turns" and "Axis collapse" sections. What do you think about that?
Regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I am just wondering your opinions on potential taking things about the article to admins or something similar as it appears seekerfortruth initally intentions to improve have changed to want to make the article a fansite that brags about rangers, (although i am fan i know what wikipeida is about to) they appear to be either copyvoiltion when adding things and appear to go against conesensus on things and it really annoying to keep repeating the same thing to them-- Andy Chat c 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
While you may well be correct removing unsourced material, the article is being worked on at present. Rodhull andemu 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a great opportunity to merge the excellent work done on the "inaccuracies" page into the film article's Production section and make it even better. 71.171.109.2 ( talk) 12:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you show where in a source they use the term "some" when referring to the character composites? I suspect you put in "some" because you thought that there was a one-to-one correspondence between Bartlett and Bushell. We don't know that, and that may well be incorrect since the film makers may have introduced aspects into Bartlett that belong to POWs other than Bushell. I think the best any of the analysts can honestly say is that Bartlett is mainly based on Bushell because they don't know whether other POWs were used too. The most authoritative statement in this regard is the statement in the film itself that says that the characters are composites. Would you agree to the removal of "some"? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed in your recent edit summary, re the number of escapees, that you wrote "the source doesn't point out the difference between film & reality". It did! And I indicated in my edit summary where you could find it. Here's the exact quote from the source, "The plan was to get 200 men out of the camp (not the 250 stated in the movie)." I agree with the deletion of that paragraph and I agree with merging the significant parts of the "accuracy" wiki with the film wiki, but I'm concerned with your style, viz. the edit warring behavior regarding "some" and not carefully checking the source re 200/250. Regards, -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you been posting as this IP? So far it hasn't caused me any significant problems but if you are, you should disclose it because otherwise editors may think that there are 2 editors with similar opinions instead of one, and that can affect the perception of consensus. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I undid a few of your edits to the X title. You removed information that was accurate as well. The championship is a world championship and world heavyweight championship is the only link I have to represent that.-- Will C 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"minor changes and fixing problems." Your edits were not these. They were disruptive. You removed information and sources I may add from an article that was under debate and a GA review. If you were rewriting a few small problems, I would understand. But removing an entire section against what seemed to be two editors agreeing against one nearing a consensus on whether or not that section was OR. In the MoS it states not all statements must have a ref. None of my claims were unbelievable. They were common sense because you could see, that is why the image is in the article. Which would remove the OR from the subject. Since Millcan owns that site and he is a creator of championships which includes the X Title, I was using it to help source something he created. It is not a news site so fact checking doesn't come into play. He does not publish information either. Not all sites must be well known nor do they have to be respected. I don't respect tons of sites, so I guess little oh me makes the New York Times unreliable. I'll go off and remove them from all articles now like you. I've established he is reliable. Being the creator and backed by TNA Wrestling as the creator, he is reliable.-- Will C 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I ask of you please, before you do anything to the article ask me. You do not know what the refs cover or what is important and what isn't. The promotion makes a title world. There is no governing body in pro wrestling to give world status. The 2002 ref covers two of the sources for names. I added a ref for the third because I forgot to earlier. I add two or three new sources to show the belt is new and re-added the designs section. Here is a link to show that Millcan is covered by third party reliable sources: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1179437910.shtml. Yes you don't have to ask me, but when you don't know shit about what you are working on you should.-- Will C 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
See professional wrestling is not a legit sport and has a different frame of mind. When a championship is announced as being of the world, it means the company considers it a world championship. There is no higher body in professional wrestling to give a championship world status, besides the company. So it is not unsourced commentary and with the ref it is already sourced. The only reason those notes are there, is because of that. Plus Borash was special guest ring announcer because Borash is not the regular announcer. David Penzer is. Borash quit being it in 2004.-- Will C 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
← And I rightfully understand your frustration. As such, I would be willing to help resolve this dispute once your block expires. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify how you correlate opinion and unreferenced to the removed article? Wullie smoking is available in print so anyone with access to them can see the changes over the years - Oor Wullie is the reference. I don't feel the section was a point of 'opinion' - more fact. Unless someone has copies of every late 20th and 21st century strip, it's not possible to cite that Wullie did not steal his Pa's pipe last week - but it is possible to reference strips where he did. I'm happy to add those if you feel the need. Forthbridge ( talk) 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok - thanks for that. I'll try and source before any changes in future, and if not 'keep quiet' Forthbridge ( talk) 17:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. Any further disruption will likely result in a block. Thank you. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been
blocked for a period of 24 hours for
edit warring on on both
List of TNA X Division Champions &
TNA X Division Championship. It is essential that you are more careful to
discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply
revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. If you agree to stop edit warring, and take the issue to talk pages I am more than willing to unblock. To contest this block please place {{
unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk
03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping maybe we can come to an agreement to end our disagreement. I don't plan to renominate the X Title for FAC for maybe a week. I'm going to work on the prose and sourcing problems in a subpage, seeing as you are correct there are problems in those areas. If you would be so kind, to leave me a lists of problems you believe on my talk page? I would like to end our disagreements regrading the TNA X Division Championship and List of TNA X Division Champions articles.-- Will C 03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)