This 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.

Hi,

Long time! I was looking at this page again and noted a link in the resources section that appears to be going to an article commercial site (google adwords, etc). Guessing that this should not really be linked to? I also assume that this section of the page has been locked somehow as it does not appear to be editable? Page is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spooky69 ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me but I'm not sure which link you're talking about. Is it in the external links section? Perhaps you could tell me what the exact name/url is? Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help Balkans page war by contributing to the new section fostered to use evidence to examine the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokin ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, have done. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "censorship controversy" in the article about Flickr, I RE-corrected the material (Removed Iran). In Iran, many websites are censored but not Flickr. I don't understand why you insist on putting untrue information in the article. I.persian ( talk) 16:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't the editor who added the information about Iran to the article in the first place, but I did revert your edit because you didn't give a reason for it in the edit summary and it looked somewhat like vandalism. If Flickr isn't censored in Iran, then I agree with you that it clearly shouldn't be listed in the article. I suggest that you make use of the edit summary in future to avoid confusion though. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought about this some more and one of the reasons I re-added Iran is that a number of websites, including Flickr's own state that Flickr is blocked there. Perhaps this used to be the case but now it's unblocked? Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, at least for now Flickr is not censored. Thanks for the clarification. I.persian ( talk) 01:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

that's ok, i had to check myself :p ninety: one 12:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out he passed his medical. I am not sure about the work permit, but I think that might of been cleared if not stated. Govvy ( talk) 16:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S you might want to archive your talk page, it's a bit long!!

I don't think he has got the work permit yet. Spurs seem to be good at updating their website when transfers are complete, as they did with Giovani dos Santos, and there's been nothing on Modrić‡yet. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to include in the Tier 1 General Migrant article, every possible information that is available on the Uk Border Agency web site. I have edited the text to my own wording, but it still reflects the original guidance relating to Points-based immigration system in the United Kingdom. Please if you find anything used by the copy right, please help to change it to not to be using the copy right text, rather than deleting it outright. Thanks.

Tahavur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahavur ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The detail of encyclopedia given in wikipedia is "An encyclopedia (or encyclopædia) is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided into articles with one article on each subject covered. The articles on subjects in an encyclopedia are usually accessed alphabetically by article name and can be contained in one volume or many volumes, depending on the amount of material included". Therefore I believe that to include all the minimum information regarding is inline with the above mentioned detail. Its also a branch of knowledge and wikipedia should hold the minimum information needed to provide complete detail regarding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahavur ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That quote does not specify how much detail articles should go into. Please read WP:NOTGUIDE, which states that "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos". The page on the BIA website which you've added the information from "explains the points-based assessment you need to pass to meet the requirements under the highly skilled worker category (Tier 1 General) of the points-based system to work in the United Kingdom". It therefore contravenes WP:NOTGUIDE. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know which of the municipalities make up the urban area of Sarajevo, but I'd guess that the six the article states is probably correct. I simply noticed that the area and population for the city proper should only include the area and population of those four municipalities that make up the city proper. Do you think you can find the area of the city proper as opposed to listing the area of the urban area? -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 04:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Can you please participate in this discussion, regarding the terminology for the Romanies [1]? AKoan ( talk) 10:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You removed the map with an explanation of "it doesn't correspond to the countries listed here". The "Current common definition" section states: "countries commonly included in the Balkan region" (dark green on map) and "Some other countries are sometimes included" (light green on map). Why do you think the map doesn't correspond to those definitions? Thanks. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Croatia isn't dark green on the map, but is in the list of countries commonly considered to be part of the Balkans. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair point -though Croatia is sometimes treated as a borderline case because of its being under Austrohungary rather than the Ottomans. I thought it'd be nice to have the other 'borderline' countries (Romania etc.) highlighted in a map. No biggie, in any case. Thanks. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 21:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I realise that but we clearly need to have consistency between the text and the map. The problem is that no one will ever agree on what countries belong where when it comes to that part of the article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Balkans. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Alokin ( talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to uphold the consensus decision that had been reached on the talk page. Surely the onus should have been on the anonymous IP whose edits I was reverting to make their case on the talk page? Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Science Research, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ipsa.org/site/content/view/418/38/lang,en. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a mistake. I've noted so at Talk:Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Science Research. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on TheTrainLine, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because TheTrainLine seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting TheTrainLine, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot ( talk) 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I see that you have been working on London - and I was wondering if I could help out! I've worked quite a bit on that article, so I'd be happy to perform any clean up, reference finding etc.

Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest working on the references so that they all use citation templates, but they seem to be in a pretty good state already. I guess it could do with some copy-editing here and there if you're looking for something to do? Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would try - but I'm not that good at copy editing - so I'll work on those refs I guess! :) -- The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Seems there were some references that needed converting. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there's a couple of PDF references that I haven't converted and <ref>See: [[List of cities by GDP]]</ref> - is also there, so I'm unsure what to do about that one... The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the references to PDFs can't be converted? As for the reference to List of cities by GDP, that should presumably be integrated into the main text as a link? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll convert the PDF refs to cite webs, and integrate as you said. The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

Sure, I'll see what I can do with it! :)

The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Don't feel you have to do all of them! There's quite a few that need fixing. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I use a script to find the ones that have problems, to install it go to Special:Preferences - the last Editing Gadget - ref tools tick it. Then clear cache. When you edit, the button on the very right, is "Cite". Click on that then on Error Check, select all of the options and select "Check for selected errors". Once you've done that you'll have a list of errors to fix (you can use the web,news,book,journal buttons to create the respective cite web template. My suggestion would be to copy the results from the Error checking, starting with the words error checking down to the bottom into Word or something like that - then it's a nice easy table to deal with! The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have the tool installed but I hadn't investigated the error checking part. I'll give it a go. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start on Derry tommorow - do you think that London should go through PR? Or do the sources still need reliability? The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure really. To be honest, I've never really been involved in that process. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a dif? Because it must have been with the use of some JavaScript, if so - feel free to revert. The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It was part of this edit. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was just a script - so if you want to change it, feel free. The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've finished fixing references as much as I can! Here's the few edits that just need your interpretation, as to what template should be used:

• <ref>This is the official Post Town as defined by [[Royal Mail]].</ref>

• <ref>Change of District Name (Derry) Order 1984</ref>

• <ref>Sections 7, 8 and 132 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (Eliz II 20 & 21 c.9)</ref>

• <ref name="LP2003">Letters Patent certifying the arms of the City of Londonderry issued to Derry City Council, sealed by Garter and Norroy and Ulster Kings of Arms dated [[April 30]], [[2003]]</ref>
• <ref>Genealogical Office, Dublin: GO Ms 60, ''Sketches of arms by Richard Carney'', fol. 47</ref>
• <ref>College of Arms, London: ''The Arms of Peers of Ireland and some Commoners, fol. 133d (c.1652)</ref>

• <ref>L E Rothwell, ''An inquiry initiated by Derry City Council into the ensigns armourial and related matters of the City of Londonderry''</ref>

• <ref>Letters Patent ratifying and confirming the arms of the City of Londonderry sealed by Garter and Norroy & Ulster Kings of Arms dated [[April 28]], [[1952]]</ref>

Hope this helps, The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to sort those out when I have time. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know I had already opened a discussion this morning at the WikiProject Football. Bye. -- Angelo ( talk) 21:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll make a note there. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello :) . I would strongly advise that you move old discussions from this page to an archive. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, I have lots of links elsewhere (on talk pages, etc.) that link to specific sections of this page and I don't want to break them. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! This is interesting stuff - infact, it's one that's been brought up at least twice before, of course agreeing that these neologisms need to stop (one of these is found here). That is also my stance, but I've noticed its continued, on, and on, and on, and on, which is a shame.

Some of these articles are outright original research, others are simply ridiculous (by which I mean they are spoiling the integrity of Wikipedia with the possibility of being ridiculed as serious entries). I think one or two could be reasonable articles, whilst others ought to be merged.

I will share my concerns, again, with this user (who also uses an ip starting 90.2xxx). -- Jza84 |  Talk  16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You have my fullest support with an en masse deletion, and one of the best lists to copy over is found at the link above. I've also shared my grave concern with the user in question, and a cursory glance at his/her talk page shows they have been notified several times about this issue. -- Jza84 |  Talk  16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By co-incidence, I reverted this gentleman today, not knowing there was a link. See Special:Contributions/90.216.170.233. Not good reading I'm afraid. :S -- Jza84 |  Talk  17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good list! Some of the not sure-ers I'd actually nom too - I'm thinking Cape Verdean migration to Britain? But eitherway, it'd be a great start. :) -- Jza84 |  Talk  21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello There!!!!

I really appreciate your effort in bringing these articles under light. I cant believe there were so many.

Happy Editing!!!!

Hitro 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope they get deleted because the editors involved have been warned numerous times about notability, original research and referencing but have never taken heed so I don't see current promises to improve the articles being kept. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% that the artists linked with london should be referenced or at least, those without an obvious link should be removed. Personally I don't think that Paul McCartney should be there as he is and always will be linked with Liverpool. Likewise I am not sure about Yoko Ono as I am not sure if she lives in London, and has no great historical link with the city. Having thought about it more, I would probably have left your edit as it stands and deleted those two for starters. Deckchair ( talk) 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we do that then? Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to limit it to artists with a stronger connection to London than to any other major city's music scene. Sourcing would also be useful. One can connect any artist to London if one tries hard enough. Brilliantine ( talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[2] Is a useful place to start in terms of sources. Brilliantine ( talk) 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(<)Nice one. Others that can probably stay/be added if sourcing is found: Pink Floyd (from Cambridge but most associated with London), The Yardbirds, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden, Elvis Costello, Fleetwood Mac, The Police. Not sure how many you want... Brilliantine ( talk) 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Blur of course, very important for them to go in there. Brilliantine ( talk) 00:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I leave it to you to find references and add them? I'm a bit busy with an AfD at the moment and I only really made the original edit to correct what I saw as a mistake. Cordless Larry ( talk) 00:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can try, though this is the kind of thing it is a real pain finding references for. I may have to wait till tomorrow. Brilliantine ( talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Added the ones I could find easy references for, any more may be too many anyway). Brilliantine ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed banned users, deleted and stale accounts from this list and added new users (they are informed). This is OK ?-- Rjecina ( talk) 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. I see you also added other users, which isn't advisable, but you seem have to have sorted that out now. In future, invite them to add themselves by posting a comment on their talk pages or something similar. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And in what shape or form is this not notable? Gabr- el 04:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated on the template, the article does not assert why this (very small according to the population estimate) group is notable. Surely the information would be better placed at Assyrian diaspora? Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

5,000 may be small by today's standards, but 5,000 is just under 0.5% of the entire Chaldo-Assyrian population. Thus its notability is in that. I will see if I can get some sources, but the number for 1.2 million Assyrians is cited in the Assyrians article. Gabr- el 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That argument relies on the reference for the 5,000 figure actually supporting it, which it doesn't. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't found yet a 5,000 reference, but I found something of equal notability. On the article i added in a ref to a British politician named Stephen Pound, who has been very vocal in his support. I will find more soon. Gabr- el 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that that establishes notability on its own, but carry on with the good work. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done

There are now 4 references, including one by a British Member of Parliament who stated that there were 8,000 Assyrians in the UK. Thanks for motivating me to improve the article; I also had the pleasure of finding out that my brethren there are not 5,000 but 8,000. Gabr- el 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cordless Larry. I have responded to that and will take part in discussion as soon as I get a couple of things sorted here. Regards, ~ Troy ( talk) 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello!!!

I will definitely inject my view at this discussion, thanks for notifying. Hitro 19:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! I will also lend my hand here. However, I intend to be aggressive (for want of another word) in going through these and removing an uncited material. I think that will show the community just how bad these articles are. -- Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

i can't find a birth date anywhere for hugo adam bedau i was wondering if you knew it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.109.110 ( talk) 15:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you can get them from the Library of Congress Authorities database. It's 23 September 1926. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I didn't know about that - I just picked up how I add references by copying what I saw others had done. I'll try it out. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Per Wp:cite, "Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." As the principal editor of the Bentley article, and as one of the main people who patrol and update that page regularly, I do not think the migration to template is necessary. In fact, I've written a dozen FAs without templates and without objections. Cheers. Chensiyuan ( talk) 14:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't seen that quote. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Indonesian British, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indonesian British. Thank you. cab ( talk) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noted, we've had a very serious problem recently with editors attempting, for whatever reason, to delete numerous valid, notable, and sourced ethnic group articles; in some cases they were successful and this has caused extreme disruption to our project. I had assumed, from your own conduct, that you were such an editor. Badagnani ( talk) 18:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian British, I'm worried by your use of "our project". Remember that there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. As such, any editor is free to nominate articles for deletion. If they have been successful in this, it is because of consensus and can't be considered disruption as you suggest. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, it would show the most thoughtfulness and consideration to move the material you find offensive to "Discussion." Even better would be to actually utilize "Discussion" and "fact" tags. Badagnani ( talk) 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not as if the material cannot be recovered from the article history if necessary. And as the Jimbo Wales quote makes clear, removing potentially false information is preferable to tagging it. "Blanking" is a strong word to use - it's not as if I blanked the article, just removed unreferenced text, some of which wouldn't belong there even if it was cited. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. If it is, then what about other articles like " Black British" and others? Shouldn't you also be placing this tag on those articles also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PakistaniNisar ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Terms such as Black British are commonly used, including in official statistics, whereas Afghan British isn't as far as I'm aware. If you can find sources that use Afghan British then please add them to the article and the tag can be removed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is alright now. But there are many other articles like these with obvious neoligisms. Can you please look at the following and if appropriate place the neologism tag on them? Thanks

• Afro-French, Afro-German, Korean African, Afro-Slovaks, Afro-Irish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PakistaniNisar ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that there are lots of them, but I'm trying to restrict myself to the X-British ones for now because I don't have the time to tag them all. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please tag the ones I mentioned above at least? It should only take a few minutes. Thanks. PakistaniNisar ( talk) 08:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look but I don't think they're all neologisms. For example, there are some references to Afro-French in news sources and this book has Afro-German in the title. Afro-Irish isn't an article but a redirect to Black people in Ireland, and Korean African is a disambiguation page. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Slovaks is a prime example though and, as such, I've nominated it for deletion. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that you find many of my edits disruptive, but plenty of them are sourced. such as the popualtions of Afro-Caribbean communities. The figure for people born in that country alone is CLEARLY and underestimate of true numbers, and as for the Caymanian people of Jamaican descent category. I agree it shouldn't have been created and I was just trying to get ride of it myself. Stevvvv4444 ( talk) 15:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are sourced, but what I reverted here (something that you added when you weren't logged in) clearly wasn't. If you can't find sources, please don't add material such as this to Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, I'll request that you be blocked because you have been warned plenty of times. As for the category you created, if you want it deleted, place a {{db-author}} tag on it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Will you kindly provide me with the diff of the edit to which you are referring? I certainly did not make any edit of the sort you mention after the friend to which you appear to have reported me commented on my page. Badagnani ( talk) 03:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit. I had warned you about making the same comment about me in other discussions. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing the material, especially about the Churches in England. I am after all from England and an Assyrian myself. I can't use myself as a reference but you can personally trust me. Right now, I don't have much time to find a site. But especially do not remove the "aturaya" and "chldenaya" words, they are referenced in other articles! Must we reference the fact that English people call themselves English? Gabr- el 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Please read this for why it is preferable to remove unsourced information. You might also like to take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. If references exist in other articles then please restore the information and use those references. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I beg of you to give me the benefit of the doubt for now. All the information can be sourced, but just give me a week or more, I haven't got the time to find the appropriate sites. Gabr- el 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see what the problem is. If you can find the sources then just restore the material to the article in a week's time and reference it. It's all there in the article history so you can easily restore it once you're ready. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your obsession with that rule. I asked you nicely. As an Assyrian from the UK, I am pretty sure you know that if I know something about self-designation, or about the religious services I attended every Sunday, I wouldn't lie about them. There are plenty of unreferenced information elsewhere. Gabr- el 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I realise that you asked me nicely and I appreciate that you know what you are talking about. But, as you say, it's a rule. WP:BURDEN is an official Wikipedia policy and it should therefore be upheld. Besides, I first discussed this with you back in September and I tagged it as requiring more citations a month ago, so it's not as if I haven't given you a chance to find references. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am happy that I have finally created an article that is up to the standards of many others, and I do believe sourcing is important, I do believe the vast majority of this article is sourced, and I would appreciate if you could place the citation needed templates next to the sentences that need references so that I can fix it. Thanks Stevvvv4444 ( talk) 21:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry about the confusion. I was told by a good source that I could add my (non profitable) football blog to the club it related to. I did it purely because I thought it would be of interest to the reader and so more people would read my blogs about that certain football club.

I also didnt realise that the people who 'undid' my edit were 'editers' or 'moderators'. this is all new to me. Sorry for the confusion, Im not a spammer and wont do it again. But how come some blogs are allowed and others are not?

Kind regards,

Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyK07 ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, no worries. When you say that some blogs are allowed and some are not, it's hard for me to comment without examples. It might just be that links to blogs haven't been spotted and so haven't been removed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Only just read your messages(after id tried to add more links thinking it was just some random deleting my link to my blog). Honestly didnt realise I was doing anything wrong and wont add links again. Just wasnt sure how the whole wikipedia thing works.

My sincere apologies again.

Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyK07 ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've just posted a welcome to Wikipedia message on your user talk page which sets out the basics of how Wikipedia works. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't always agree with your stubborn approach against Barian Fooish articles, but it's worth a lot of respect anyway. Cheers and take care cleaning this mess! NVO ( talk) 17:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for the editor you reported. If I might offer my perception, I think asking for civility is reasonable but clearly you are nominating articles that some editors don't feel should be targeted (as is demonstrated by a quick read of your talk page). They seem to feel targeted since you've nominated many of the articles in a seemingly systematic way. People get frustrated and upset sometimes. They should be civil, but you might be well served to do your best to let the over the top comments go. If they act inappropriately let someone else give them a warning, it reflects badly on them and not you. Your taking them on is likely to further infuriate the situation and get you ensnared in drama. This is only a suggestion along the lines of: don't take it personally. They're pissed. That's life. If you feel that the situation is serious enough that it requires scrutiny that's certainly up to you, but sometimes it only excacerbates the conflict. Regarding the substance of their arguments at AfD, I would definitely let that go. If they don't explain their reasoning well that's their problem. Someone pissed at your nom isn't going to be happy to be lectured by you on how they should comment. See what I'm saying? If their logic is weak that's their problem and the closing nom will take it into account. Clearly some other editors want to include ethnic group articles and are not happy about your AfDs of these article subjects (while other editors agree with you that they need to be thinned). Everyone should be civil, but maybe you can just be above the petty feuding and let the over the top comments of others reflect badly on them. It's usually better to let as much go as you can rather than getting caught up in conflicts and drama with other editors. No one takes those comments seriously. They're obviously expressions of people who are pissed. Those are my long winded thoughts. Perhaps some of them will be helpful. I'm going to wait to see what the other editor has to say and we'll take it from there. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Or if you'd rather I stay out of it or haven't found my comments useful, just let me know. Happy Holidays. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you have a point. It would be nice to get an apology but I will try to ignore the incivility. Thanks for trying to help. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. I refactored the title on this discussion per your valid point that they aren't exactly ethnic group articles, although they fall under that more general category. I'm not sure about the apology. Saying you should be banned for a pattern of AfD noms they don't like is uncivil, but someone thinking that you should be banned because they don't like your methods of building the encyclopedia is another matter entirely. I'd be satisfied if the over the top comments stopped. I am sorry that the comments have caused you trouble, it's definitely an interesting way of expressing unhappiness with a nom. Merry Christmas and enjoy your holiday celebrations whatever they may be. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, the other editor has suggested merges where notability isn't well established (for a stand alone article). They also said: "It's much better to work with our encyclopedia in a building/improvement mode rather than a damage-control mode." So as far as a "more constructive way", their view is pretty clear that they think putting these articles up at AfD rather than merging or adding to them isn't constructive. So asking for collaboration, if that's the process you're going to choose is stretching things a bit too far. I would also suggest that it's not necessary to engage them on their talk page or at the AfDs. They're clearly unhappy with these articles being sent to AfD in the first place, and I don't see any good coming from provoking further explanation as their view has already been made VERY clear to you. Right? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merges are fine. I effectively suggested that before here. However, there needs to be some material to actually merge. Take Venezuelan British, for example, which could be merged into Latin American Britons. All there is is the population figure though. Other than that, most of these articles have zero sourced content. The population figures are given at Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom in any case, so what exactly do these articles add to Wikipedia? Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Right but check this out. If you have 10 groups with a couple thousand or a few hundred, that gives you a nice little list. That may be useful in the future (especially if it's sourced) as those demographics maybe change or even grow into a notable group. And even in the meantime, it's a nice resource to see how many of certain groups there are, even if those particular groups aren't established enough to be notable. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well hang on now, first you said where could they be emrged to and then you point out the Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom article. So maybe that would be a place? If there's really nothing else in the article you could redirect. At least that way the edit history is still there. Always best to suggest on talk page first of course and see what folks say. Propose redirecting or merging. I haven't looked to see if there is other info, but I guess they like to include notable persons too, which there may not be room for in the Ethnic Groups UK article. So maybe a Ce la vie approach would be best? There are other areas to clean up. Have you checked out wp: new page patrol? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I see there's also religion and language information in the template box. So I think they just like to organize the information by having individual articles on the groups, however small. Why do you think it makes the encyclopedia better to get rid of them? (this is my third comment, but I keep having new thoughts...) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the ethnic groups in the UK article is a good place to merge to, although I suspect that any such proposal will meet with equal resistance from certain editors as the AfDs. But I'd be willing to try. On the religion/language point, you'll note that none of that is sourced and it just replicates the information from the main article on each of the ethnic groups, as far as I can see. So the Israeli British article just tells us which religions and languages Israelis in general practice and speak, for example. Cordless Larry ( talk) 03:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to try different approaches. I'm still curious why, facing this level of resistance, you're focused on this area of the encyclopedia to clean up? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess the topic just interests me. My job involves working with data on population groups and I wanted to use the knowledge I have from that to contribute to Wikipedia. I came across the Latin American Britons article and saw that it was really badly sourced and what sources were given were used out of context or had been used to create extrapolations, violating WP:OR, so I set to work trying to improve it. I then discovered that this was a general trend with Wikipedia articles on ethnic and migrant groups, with data blatantly misrepresented, often in such a way as to make the groups appear bigger than they actually are, possibly for nationalistic reasons on the part of some editors (for example, when working on Cypriot British, which I'm quite proud of, I was called a racist, told to learn to speak Greek if I wanted to edit articles and told to "Leave the Cypriot Britons article for Cypriots to edit", here - note the irony in me being called a racist and then told that I shouldn't edit an article because it wasn't about my own ethnic group!). Similarly, some editors seem to think that because they belong to a particular community and therefore "know best", they don't need to provide sources - see here. The other problem I have with a lot of these articles (and categories also) is that they seem to represent a move to bring ethnicity into everything on Wikipedia, even when it's not relevant. That's why I nominated List of Jews in sports for deletion, because in the vast majority of cases someone's Jewishness has nothing to do with their sporting activities. Just as we don't have a list of Jewish criminals, so we shouldn't have a list of Jews in sport. Hope this makes sense in terms of explaining my position. Then again, maybe I've been reading too much Stuart Hall... Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, I should say that none of the complaints about bias in the above comment apply to Badagnani. This is a wider rant! Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I want to think on it more, but my initial reaction is that what you've said is reasonable as far as the clean up, and I don't think anyone but the nationalists would object. As far as whether article focused on ethnicity or national background is appropriate, I think that's more complicated. On the one hand I see your point, but on the other hand I was just working on some polka articles and artists and they are distinctive as Polish Americans. So there is cultural "baggage", if you will. I still don't exactly understand the need to delete (as opposed to letting be, or merging) the smaller ethnic group articles. Especially as it's caused conflict. It seems like you'd have more success collaboratively working to make the sourcing and content better on the articles you're interested in. Thanks for discussing it with me. It's interesting. I saw one person comment at AfD that British is a nationality and not an ethnicity, and some people took it as a nationalistic rant. But I think you and I understand it to be just the opposite, as I think the editor was saying that trying to put nationalism into everything isn't exactly appropriate, and where people come from doesn't define who they are. But as with my Polka example (true with food and other cultural activities as well, and often times religion) there are distincitve cultural and ethnic threads that are tied to historical roots in particular nations. I'm not sure what the balance is. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I absolutley understand that ethnicity and nationality are sometimes important, as are other identities such as sexual, class and gender ones, but we should be careful not to write ethnicity into everything in cases where it doesn't have a bearing and risk reifying it. That was my main problem with the list of Jews in sport. If their Jewishness mattered in individual cases, then of course that should be including in the individual articles, but it didn't justify a list for me. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet there are lots of reliable sources establishing the notability of that subject. So I don't see how it can be excluded. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I must admit at first I didn't see anything about Finland in the article. I hope I sorted that now. Re your other point. Scandinavian is a clearer ethnic label than Nordic. Finland is not Scandinavian of course, save for Scandinavian immigrants and settlement there, and except through that Finland isn't Scandinavian at all, and it would be quite POV to have an article grouping Finns and Scandinavians together like that. But "Nordic" is just dodgy generally. It has certain racial connotations also which probably mean it shouldn't be used if not necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, good point. Is Iceland considered Scandinavian though? Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnically, I'd think most people would regard it as such, even if the language is no longer comprehensible with mainland Scandinavian (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Finland and Iceland are sometimes considered Scandinavian. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, but I didn't think they were generally considered Scandinavian and wondered if the categorisation was a bit too controversial to use in an article title such as Scandinavian migration to the United Kingdom. But Nordic seems at least as controversial too. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What do the sources say? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what sources are you referring to? Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are sources at Scandinavia that support the inclusion of Finland and Iceland and sources that don't. Interestingly in light of the above discussion, the article suggests that including Iceland is less common than including Finland. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could specify what you mean by Scandanavia. Or retitle the whole article. But it look sokay to me. Has someone objected to a specific part? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I just queried the fact that it had been moved from Nordic migration to the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with your reasons for merging. There may be some groups with enough content for a separate page. In these cases, their section can have a {main} reference to their page. I have seen this effect in various other cases: a collection of small, mostly trivial pages that have something in common like tribes in an ethnic group, valleys in a mountain range or churches in a town. By giving each member of the collection a section in a larger article on the collection as a whole, with a redirect page to that section, anyone looking for member will reach the content on the member just as easily as if it had its own page. The larger article lets readers compare the members. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am reviewing your article, British Cypriots, for GA and have entered some initial comments about the articcle at Talk:British Cypriots/GA1. I did a little copy editing of the article, which I hope you don't mind. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work Cordless Larry, I believe the only UK ethnic group article to have this distinction is British Bangladeshi. Stevvvv4444 ( Talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know I have left a comment on the tlak page of Ghanaians in the United Kingdom ( Talk:Ghanaians in the United Kingdom), it would be great if you could get involved, and I would appreciate your help. Thanks User:Stevvvv4444 ( talk) 13:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I realize you reverted my edit, but in doing so, you also undid all of my other changes. I've therefore reinstated said other changes, and retained the OECD census figure you added. I've also renamed its refname to Census2001 since you say that is where the figure was taken from. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was the only way I could revert the edit. I was in the process of restoring your other changes. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've passed comment on my talk page, and have also been quite brutal and left my concernd at User:Stevvvv4444's talk page. I do think this is really quite bad for WP for reasons left at those two points, and think it needs to stop. -- Jza84 |  Talk  20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would certainly support taking this further. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see you've been busy lately renaming them. I have a question, though: couldn't those titles be equally classified as descriptive, which would make them acceptable? SamEV ( talk) 22:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to be more specific. Do you mean that the "X British" format could be called descriptive? If so, I think the "X in the United Kingdom" format fits the bill better as per WP:NEO. "X British", where it is not already commonly used, involves coining a neologism. Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Do you mean that the "X British" format could be called descriptive?"

Correct. You're also correct that the longer phrases are descriptive. I'm arguing that they both are. SamEV ( talk) 04:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced. "X British" isn't so much a description in the sense meant at WP:NEO but rather a compound adjective. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so, Larry. "British" is also a noun ("the people native to or inhabiting Great Britain." [3]).

Let me say that I meant originally to include in this discussion 'X Briton' articles as well, as we did at Latin American Britons. "Briton", you may agree, is unquestionably a noun, isn't it? Let me note also that WP:NEO is not categorical; it does leave room for using neologisms.

Nevertheless, the issue is that these are not actually neologisms. Take "Belgian" and "Briton". They're the well-known terms for citizens, or inhabitants, or descendants of citizens or inhabitants, of Belgium [4] and the UK respectively. Now, because the format 'Booian Fooian' is ubiquitous, it is instantly recognizable; It is for that reason that, even if you've never heard of Belgian Britons, you instantly understand what "Belgian Britons" refers to: Britons of Belgian ancestry.

Because "Belgian Britons" is in an established, well-known format, it is immediately understood: the term is descriptive. SamEV ( talk) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think I still prefer the Latin Americans in the United Kingdom format, if for no other reason than that the article includes information about people who are not British citizens. If you feel strongly about this you should propose a move back though. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there's an obvious symmetry there: the article is now about "Latin Americans", per the title. Yet it includes UK-born citizens, who are therefore presented as immigrants from Latin America. You've basically turned them into foreigners; in their own country of birth. Why aren't you equally bothered by that, as you are by the extension of "British" and "Briton" to non-citizen residents?

Maybe the solution is a split: one article for citizens, one for noncitizens. Your opinion? SamEV ( talk) 01:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In short, I am as bothered by that but I can't think of a simply way to overcome it. The previous title, Latin American Britons, also suggests that these people are foreigners. Remember, though, that the census data which forms the basis of the article is about people born in Latin America, not the UK. In principle, I would support the establishment of two articles, but I doubt there is enough material for that. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? How does "Latin American Britons" suggest that they're foreigners?

And if it does, wouldn't the same apply to all titles in the same format: " Malaysian Britons", " Egyptian British", " Barbadian British", or " Greek Britons", to name a few? All of them say that they cover citizens, too. You seem to be telling me that you're across-the-board opposed to that format. Are you indeed? SamEV ( talk) 21:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to us coining neologisms. If you can find evidence that the term Latin American Britons is widely used, then I'm happy for the article to be called that. You're right that it perhaps doesn't make the group sound so foreign as Latin Americans in the UK but, as I say, the data used in the article is mostly about people born in Latin America anyway. Furthermore, there's as much a problem with suggesting that all of these people are British as there is with suggesting they're foreign. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you take this up at Talk:Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. If you want to rename the article, suggest it there and we can establish consensus. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't decided how to proceed yet.

But suggesting that they're all British is not "a problem", Larry. That's because, let me remind you, the only good definition of British we could find in a reliable source suggested that it means 'residents of UK'. That would make all these people British — the citizen and the non-citizen alike. So where's this problem you keep perceiving? Per what reliable source? SamEV ( talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of "British" in this sense is that it means British citizen. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I know. But your understanding runs contrary to at least one reliable source. SamEV ( talk) 22:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This source states that it can be used to describe the citizens of the UK. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In full, the definition reads: "The citizens or inhabitants of the UK.". That supports what I've said. If I ever implied that citizens are not included (!), I apologize, Larry. SamEV ( talk) 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there is more than one definition and no, you didn't imply that citizens are not included. The point is that British can mean just the citizens of the UK, or all inhabitants (amongst other things). Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. 'Multiple definitions' screams "NPOV issue". So let's work to find a way to include those definitions, so that we can be fair to both groups of people: the foreigners and the citizens (especially the native-born). SamEV ( talk) 01:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we take this discussion elsewhere to get wider input. Any ideas where? Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your call. SamEV ( talk) 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Start a thread over there, please. SamEV ( talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you do it? It's you who is contesting my renaming, after all. Cordless Larry ( talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see... SamEV ( talk) 00:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'll try to help you out with the Lift and Strike article. I've already made a couple of edits. The way I see it, we have a pretty long way to go, and the main priority now would be to start adding section headings and then filling them in. Hope we can make it a great article. Cool3 ( talk) 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i noticed the template that u placed at the top of the article, and I am fully willing to comply, as I want to make this article as good as possible to prove that I am puttin in an effort. As for the single source goes, the content of that source comes from many other places, would citing these individual sources eliminate the current problem? Thanks Stevvvv4444 ( talk) 13:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would. Citing original sources is probably preferred in any case. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on Jza84's talk page about Stevvvv4444, but I'm afraid he's not edited since 12th March and has stated that he'll be on wikipedia infrequently this month. I'm unfamiliar with the case, so shan't take any action, so your next best port of call might be WP:ANI. Good luck, Nev1 ( talk) 20:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I also realised that he'd not edited in a while. I will take it to the noticeboard. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)