User talk:Edwardx/Archive 2010-2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kapok Tree Inn Postcards

In January 2010 you offered to share with me some images you have of postcards depicting the Kapok Tree Inn Restaurant located in Clearwater, Florida. Your offer was in response to a message I posted on the discussion page for the existing Kapok Tree wiki page, which is about the tree itself and located in a science or botany category.

The restaurant went out of business about 20 years ago but the tree, along with the unique buildings and grounds, are still intact, so any resources from the years that the Inn was in operation would be very welcome. This is my first attempt at starting a new page, and I have begun the research process. So yes, please, I would like to take you up on the offer, if you are still willing.

I see from your talk page that you are very familiar with posting/sharing images in this forum. While I understand how to share images, files, etc.,. via the internet, I am unsure if any additional or specific procedures for sending/receiving image files between wiki users exist. If they do, I have not yet located instructions on this topic in the Help pages. I will of course continue to search for the answer in the interim. If there are specific instructions, it would be greatly appreciated if you would alert me prior to sending any images.

I apologize for not responding sooner. Thank you for offering to share your resources. I believe the next step is that I should wait for a response from you, posted to my talk page. --Sherherazad13 (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Henry A V Post

A tag has been placed on Henry A V Post requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ryankiefer (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the article, but it would be better if newer Wikipedians read the Criteria for Speedy Deletion first before suggesting an article about someone who is obviously notable. As you will see from the article's talk page, your request for speedy deletion was speedily declined. Edwardx (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for tagging the article for speedy deletion. However, the article does not make any claim of the subject's significance, which if I recall is CSD A7. As of right now the article is just a brief biography and the list of his children. In addition, the article does not cite any reliable sources showing the subject's notability (though this, I admit would actually just bring about a regular deletion discussion). I tagged it because of this. I'll drop this issue as it appears you have plans to revisit the article.
In the future, please try to remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF when dealing with "newcomers." -- Ryankiefer (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GreteMosheimPassportPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GreteMosheimPassportPhoto.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Grantham

Hi Edwardx,

Thanks for the notable clean-up of Richard Bomphrey, Bruce Longden, Jonathan Wigley, and Melvyn Bradley in Grantham. Someone has added Richard Nauyokas back in but I suppose its all right as he now has a Wiki article. Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for kindly appreciating my efforts. Yes, someone should not be added to such lists unless there is already a Wikipedia article for that person, but a redlink could be added if a clear claim to notability could be stated and referenced. In my opinion, the notability of Richard Nauyokas is marginal, but at least people can now argue about that on "his" page, should they so wish. Edwardx (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Passport links

Re your recent link at Indian Passport, I wonder if it would not be more appropriate at British Indian passport. Not quite sure on our finer policy issues re such a link, but being a bit of a historic passports nut, I find the images fascinating. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems to be quite in order. I either didn't know or had forgotten that there was a separate article for British Indian passport. I will put the link there instead. Thank you! Edwardx (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. RashersTierney (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alastair Little

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Alastair Little requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I found your "first article" post on my talk page rather patronising. I have started many articles (none have ever been deleted) and edited 1000s. Even a cursory search of the internet would show you that Alastair Little is a notable British chef - my article mentions four published books. I only added him because he was mentioned elsewhere and I was surprised not to find a Wikipedia article. I was planning to do more work on this article, but your attitude is just the sort of thing that would put off newer contributors. Please do a little legwork before jumping in on the work of others! Edwardx (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Cask Ale article

How did/do you edit the caption on a picture? (Is this the right place to post messages to you/ in general to contributors?) DrWhoFan (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a user's talk page is the best place to leave someone a message. If the subject matter would be of interest to readers of the article itself, you can also post something on the article's Discussion page. As for editing the photo caption as well as the article, you simply click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the article page, rather than the "edit" link for an individual section of the article. In this way, you can edit anything and everything in the article. Edwardx (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did an MA there. Box added. Thanks! Edwardx (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rousay

Interesting text you added - but any chance of a citation? Ben MacDui 17:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added a reference. Edwardx (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Cheers! Ben MacDui 19:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Invisible Barnstar

The Invisible Barnstar
For this edit, perplexing me. I saw a broken link, then couldn't find the problem in the code because you'd already fixed it! Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you . . .

The Original Barnstar, for good deed #1 The Original Barnstar
for removing excessive links to common words. Keep it up! GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Excessive navigation categories for Joliet?

Your recent deletion of several valid navigation categories for the city of Joliet, Illinois due to "Excessive" was unclear. How are do navigation categories become excessive? If they exist for navigation, and you think it shouldn't, you should debate on that list page. Dkriegls (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just think that having seven lists in the "See also" section is overkill, and unnecessary clutter. Would you want this in every article? No, so why have it in any article? Only the first one (List of people from Joliet, Illinois) is appropriate. Please look at the Wikipedia policy:WP See also section. Sorry, but I don't see any need for a debate! Edwardx (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect speedies

As reviewing administrator, I remind you that the bar for passing speedy A7 is not notability, but any plausible indication of significance or importance, a very much lower standard. The claim that someone is a member of a sports team with an article in Wikipedia, or on a college team of any significance, is a claim to possible importance. It may well not meet WP:N, but that's another matter. The correct thing to do in such circumstances in to use WP:PROD. (or, if the article is unsourced. WP:BLPPROD

In any case, when placing a speedy or other deletion tag on an article it is required to indicate this on the edit summary, DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and helpful guidance. Curiously, I was reading your userpage and essays when I received your message. I still have a great deal to learn about better editing on Wikipedia! Edwardx (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Tags

Hi! Whose verification do I need to erase that box on Eike Batista's text? Tks. --Sarah Moraes (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't explicitly need anyone's permission, but it might look better if someone else does it, so I've just removed it! Edwardx (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Petroc Trelawny

Greetings Edwardx, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article Petroc Trelawny in the New Articles list-- It would be great if you could also Wikify the related article Salusbury-Trelawny Baronets.

I'm kind of new here myself but let me know if there is any way I can help. Thanks, Jipinghe (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I've not created many articles of late, and Petroc Trelawny clearly merited one. As for the Salusbury-Trelawny Baronets, that looks fairly okay, but maybe it's just of no real interest to me! Edwardx (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mick Davis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mick Davis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mick Davis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. besiegedtalk 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Rather than creating 100 articles for living people--the majority of whom, in all probability, do not meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO--why not instead create a "List of FTSE 100 CEO's", which would serve the subject better and be easier to update, while not filling the wiki with articles on otherwise non-notable people, per WP:NLIST. Remember, notability is neither inherent, nor inherited, and simply being the CEO of a company, regardless of its size, is not a qualifier for notability, or there would be millions of articles about every CEO alive. besiegedtalk 19:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not proposing creating 100 articles, just articles for those CEOs without one. And I'm sorry, but I really cannot see how any of those 100 people would fail WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. As for your list proposal, we already have List of chief executive officers.
The argument in your second sentence seems to lack validity. I would agree that merely being a CEO is clearly an insufficient claim to notability. However, this only concerns one hundred of the most notable businesspeople in the UK, so "regardless of its size" would not apply. Edwardx (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you!

Edwardx, hello, and thanks so much for that barnstar. Very kind of you to notice! Happy editing! --Lockley (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. Do I sleep? I have insomnia, so sometimes I don't. But, I do have something that keeps me busy... Bgwhite (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi - Very many thanks for the barnstar. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Julian Roberts (businessman), Edwardx!

Wikipedia editor Rarkenin just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi. Please make sure there are no duplicate sources listed in the footer. You can follow Wikipedia:Footnotes#Multiple_references_to_the_same_footnote to make multiple sections refer to the same source footnote. Thanks for the contribution! Rarkenin (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Rarkenin's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thank you for CEO updates

Hi Edwardx, Thanks for this CEO updation you are doing. I am a Nestlé employee. If you feel the need any additional information please do not hesitate to get in touch with me! nestleemployee philippe.armand@nestle.com Nestleemployee (talk) 7:30 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Chris Grigg

Hello, Edwardx,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Chris Grigg should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Grigg .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, MJH (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLP violation

I think you know better than to add an unsourced birthdate to an article about a living person. I've undone your edit on Donald Cruickshank to remove that info. Please don't restore it without a citation from a reliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you've done that to several additional articles. Pleaes self-revert. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok then. I've gone and undone the ones that I could find. If this recurs, you may be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I do try to bear in mind the particular sensitivities of BLP articles. To that end, I've just spent a couple of hours re-familiarising myself with the relevant policies. Perhaps some of my edits were marginal, and I will proceed with a greater degree of circumspection in future. Edwardx (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Alan Bowkett

Can you give us a reference for the personal data you added to Bowkett's article? --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The information added came from Debrett's online. A reference has now been added to the article. Edwardx (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

New BG Group CEO

Hi, I work in the Corporate Communications team at BG Group and as a recent editor of the BG Group Wikipedia page I wanted to bring your attention the announcement of our new Chief Executive, Chris Finlayson. This change will take effect from 1 January 2013 and our press release / stock exchange announcement is available here. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.bg-group.com/MEDIACENTRE/PRESS/Pages/13Dec2012.aspxCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). If you require more information please let me know. Thank you Mjlmccarthy (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing that to my attention. I've updated BG Group and Frank Chapman accordingly, but using the Reuters news item as a source, as Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. I will start a new article for Chris Finlayson, probably later today. Edwardx (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Chris Finlayson has been created. Edwardx (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Terry Twigger

Hello Edwardx,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Terry Twigger for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Mabalu (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Commendable of you to notify me - people doing things properly is always appreciated. On the other hand, I do wonder if nominating articles for speedy deletion that are most unlikely to be deleted is the best use of yours or anyone else's time. Just a thought! Edwardx (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Stamford training

Sounds like things went really well in Stamford! Leutha (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'd not seen that page yet. Helping on my first actual training session was very interesting and thought-provoking. I'm keen to do more. It's a great project - 20,000 population town with 600+ listed buildings, but no nationally known "anchor" sights to draw in tourists. So, expanding Wikipedia coverage seems a good route to take. And luckily they have a capable leader in Dave Sones. Merry Christmas! Edwardx (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Edwardx.

You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My current interests are somewhat in that direction, so thank you - I've joined. Edwardx (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the new project, and have a nice holiday season. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

And very best wishes for the new year. RashersTierney (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Impressively precise timing. You are too kind! Edwardx (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please make sure that all the categories you add are fully sourced with inline citations. Many of categories you have added recently have no sources. Thank you Span (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

These categories are all based solely on the names in the "Notable alumni" section of the WP page of the corresponding school. Ideally, each of those entries should be sourced, but this is often not the case with WP school articles. However, whether someone attended a partcular school does not appear to be a very contentious issue. Edwardx (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
That is not correct. Entries in the "notable alumni" sections must be sourced as must any category. This is especially true in the case of living people as we discussed above. Toddst1 (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES states: “...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.”
So, even for BLPs, “must be sourced” only applies if the material is “challenged or likely to be challenged” or is “contentious”.
I did consider this before adding the “Educated at Camden School for Girls” category to BLPs. However, I cannot see how in the normal course of events this could reasonably be seen as contentious.
What if the WP article for Camden School for Girls were to incorrectly include someone in the “notable alumni” section? It is difficult to see how that person (or anyone else) could reasonably contend that that inclusion, or adding the category to the corresponding BLP, could be damaging – see WP:HARM.
I see that the reversions have led to some discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#School alumni edit. As User:Postdlf has commented (along with helpful and extensive policy discussion that I will not repeat here), school attendance is a “mundane fact”. It is not contentious. Edwardx (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you need to review Wikipedia:NLIST#Lists_of_people.
Either way, you will be blocked if you continue to add unsourced info about living people, whether you think it is contentious or not. Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Final warning

If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced info about living people, you will be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Some diffs would be useful for the rest of us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Camden School for Girls

I have noted your edit-warring with Toddst1 over old pupils of Camden School for Girls (and other schools). Rather than adding to the argument here, I have opened the issue up for debate on the WikiProject Schools talk page. GrindtXX (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Jeez. There's no edit war here. Move along. Toddst1 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Edwardx: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a hornets nest

Nonetheless, I have offered an opinion as you requested. I could not see how to offer it except in glorious isolation. We seem to differ on some details and agree on others. That is fine and probably expected :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

An apt description. No one is really arguing against the desirability of a citation in a biography article (especially a BLP), confirming attendance at a particular educational institute. However, some (myself included) would disagree with the view that such citations are or should be mandatory for bluelinked names in the "notable alumni" section of the educational institute itself. I think we might all be able to agree that any redlinked/unlinked names should have a citation to at least demonstrate that that person is notable enough such that a Wikipedia article about them should pass AfD. Alas, the relevant WP policies appear somewhat inconsistent and their interactions need clarification. Edwardx (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Were it not for the many unduly keen editors in the geographic area of India and the surrounding nations who seem to claim someone as 'one of their own' I would tend to your view, and would not be as hard line as I am. Editors in that geography seem to feel that anyone at all is grist to the list of allegedly notable alumni, holding, presumably, a different view of notability from that generally espoused by Wikipedia. I believe that the various policies on list membership require tightening to avoid the descent into Schott's Miscellany. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that far too many Indians appear to have a rather different approach, and seem intent on glorifying anyone and everything, with scant regard for truth or WP policies. Good point. Edwardx (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP Brands – Lists compiled for project banner tagging using AnomieBOT

A discussion is occurring at the talk page for WikiProject Brands at Proceeding with automatic project banner tagging using AnomieBOT regarding moving forward with automatic talk page tagging with the project's banner using AnomieBOT. All members of this project will be notified with neutrally-worded notifications about this discussion, and please feel free to contribute to it. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Sunnyvale, California. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

:{{unblock|reason= In my Watchlist I saw “Remove non notable [[WP:WTAF]]”. Clicking on the diff [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunnyvale%2C_California&diff=533761088&oldid=533760066|diff]], as one does, I found that [[Orson Scott Card (author)]] had been removed from “Notable people”. Knowing that there was such an author, and thus that WP:WTAF would not apply, I merely reinstated the content, altering the wording to “[[Orson Scott Card]], author”, thereby changing the redlink to a bluelink. I have been blocked for “Violations of the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons policy]]: repeated addition of unsourced information after numerous warnings” On a narrow technicality, it might be argued that I did add unsourced content. I would argue that I was reinstating content removed for an invalid reason. I accept that I could have checked the Orson Scott Card article, and that there is indeed no mention of what elementary school he attended. Taking a wider perspective, if someone's attendance at an unexceptional school really is “contentious material” (per WP:BLP), then what is not contentious? The underlying issues have received extensive recent discussion (the blocking Admin and I have both been involved in the first discussion), and I have been making continuing efforts to engage in this debate: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#School alumni edit]], and [[User talk:Toddst1/Archive 7#Sunnyvale, CA]] Until this incident, I had a clean block record. [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block]] mentions “serious inappropriate behaviour”. Looking at the individual edit, and all the background, it is my opinion that I am making considerable efforts to engage with the policy issues. Since receiving my “final warning”, I have taken a very strict line on not adding unsourced content to BLPs, putting aside any personal views I might have as to whether or not something might reasonably be considered contentious. I accept that I may have inadvertently reinstated unsourced content on this one occasion, but does that really constitute “serious inappropriate behaviour”? This block feels more punitive than preventative. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx#top|talk]]) 09:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)}} WP:V and WP:BLP aren't "a narrow technicality." They're critical to what we do here. The block isn't punative and isn't judged in the context of other work you do here. I've discussed WP:BURDEN with you and both your words and your behavior indicate you refuse to accept it.

Will you stop adding and/or restoring statements that aren't directly sourced? Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please not misrepresent what I've written. I have not and would never describe either WP:V and WP:BLP as "a narrow technicality." In any event, WP:V, states that “All material...must be verifiable.” The core of this is that material does not necessarily have to be verified, rather that it must be subject to the possibility of verification. Only “material challenged or likely to be challenged” needs a citation (ie actual verification).
I have accepted that I could have checked the Orson Scott Card article, but the reason given for the removal of this material was NOT that its notability was challenged, rather that the notability of Orson Scott Card himself was challenged (I've already stated this above). As for WP:BURDEN, I accept that the “burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material”. In this case it was the notability of Orson Scott Card that was challenged. Linking to the correct namespace article would appear to satisfy that burden. Orson Scott Card's school attendance was not challenged.
Your blanket demand that I not add or restore anything that isn't directly sourced does not seem reasonable, as it would subject me to a much greater burden of evidence than any other editor, and by agreeing to it, I might run the risk of further and lengthier blocks.
I think it would be helpful at this point if other editors were to contribute. Edwardx (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Had you answered yes, I would have unblocked you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that this discussion could be more productive if my arguments were actually engaged with. The addition and subsequent removal of “Given your response, I will not” to your last response suggests that WP:INVOLVED might apply here. Edwardx (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm involved with you as far as I have warned you several times (1+, 2) and have been explaining policy to you that you continue to disagree with and disregard in actions. That's different than WP:INVOLVED.
Reviewing your unblock request to deny it can only be done by an admin that did not place the block. I was merely offering to accept it. Your block is still open for review. Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

When you edited his "Early Life" section, you left a totally incomplete sentence. You just chopped off the latter part and didn't even bother going back to make the previous sentence work. That's poor etiquette and sloppy editing. Get your act together or stop editing.

Sloppy editing, I'll grant you, but the content was essentially the same. As for "poor etiquette", at least I sign my posts on talk pages. Perhaps you might consider putting your own house in order before making inflammatory comments about the (in)abilities of others. And what might the difference be between an incomplete and a totally incomplete sentence? Edwardx (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, want to help out with HSBC and money laundering aspects?

Hi, I'm writing to relatively recent contributors, including on the talk page, and asking if they want to help out. I still think there's a fair amount of work with this whole money laundering aspect, not that we've made mistakes, but rather in terms of making a good article better. For example, I think officials of the U.S. Justice Department have directly said they did not want to punish HSBC harder and risk the bank losing its license---because of risk of major economic disruption.

If you have time, please, jump in and help. We can probably very much use your help. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you for kindly thinking of me. Alas, I'm really busy with work lately, so I really can't spare the time. Hoping to have more opportunity for WP stuff some time soon... Edwardx (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Martin Lamb

The article Martin Lamb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable person.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Technical 13 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Necrothesp quickly removed the PROD tag, with the edit summary "deprod; chief execs of FTSE 100 companies are notable".
Is it reasonable to expect others to make "constructive contributions" and to explain themselves in edit summaries, if the stated PROD concern is "non-notable person", which tells us nothing? Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Martin Lamb for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martin Lamb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Lamb until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Technical 13 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Robert Thomson Leiper, Edwardx!

Wikipedia editor Barney the barney barney just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

good job.

To reply, leave a comment on Barney the barney barney's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


Category:Pratt family

Category:Pratt family, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sionk (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just participated. There are many such categories - for example, the 87 others in the parent category, Category:American families. Edwardx (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Frederic B. Pratt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederic B. Pratt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic B. Pratt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sionk (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy in letting me know about this AfD. Alas, and this is in no way personal, this is yet another example of an AfD that could easily have been avoided if a modest effort had been made to address the sourcing issues. Edwardx (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Teele Pratt

The article John Teele Pratt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Makes no claims of notability and provides no proof apart from a house website. This seems to be a genealogical piece only.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sionk (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions on my sandbox - I am currently making the necessary alterations to the page. Can I ask for your help with referencing? I have been editing and amending Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) and I have used the same reference several times, but it is listed multiple times when using {{Reflist}} . Is there an easy remedy for this? Many thanks Daemon24 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Always happy to try to help. For just about everything like that on WP there is an easy remedy, although they can be hard to find. In this case, for the first instance of using that reference, you change the <ref> tag to a <ref name> tag. I've used <ref name=ZSL_list>, but you can change that if you can think of something better or that you prefer. Then each time you use that reference again, all you need is <ref name=ZSL_list />. Don't forget that "/" character at the end. Also, note the use of "nowiki" tags in my reply, and how I used them so your use of {{Reflist}} would display correctly. Edwardx (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Just realised that the first name on the list was vaguely familiar, Roderick Murchison. Way back in 2007, I added a photo of his funerary monument. Edwardx (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP sources

Keep an eye on WP:Citing IMDb / WP:BLPSOURCES . Enough said. Widefox; talk 12:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware that IMDb is far from perfect, but even for a BLP, place of birth seems very unlikely to be a contentious issue. Also, please bear in mind that WP:Citing IMDb is only an essay, not policy. How do you feel about allmusic.com as a source instead? Edwardx (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree it shouldn't be contentious no, but Shardeloes is well sourced as his birthplace, which is near Amersham but arguably not in Amersham (a few miles outside the conurbation but still an Amersham topic I grant you). I also don't know where his mother moved to after coming out of Shardeloes (apart from what it says in the two articles) - maybe it was Amersham? I see you do some BLP work, so you should know it is policy and not dismiss it as essay - it is explicitly covered by WP:UGC. I don't know allmusic, and will leave you to it anyhow. Widefox; talk 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Having lived in Amersham, I agree that the Shardeloes connection is debatable. It was only WP:Citing IMDb that I described as an essay (I've re-checked, it is); WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:UGC are indeed policies. I'd forgotten about the mention of IMDb in WP:UGC, so I will avoid it in future. Allmusic.com may suffer from the same user-generated content concerns, so appears best avoided. Anyway, I've no issues with the reversion of my edit. Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: IMDb, it's not implausible that an inaccurate place of birth could be an issue for some artistes. I'd argue that if it's not important there's no need to include it in the article, and if it's important then it needs to be reliably sourced. IMO IMDb is best used for information that's likely to be be self-correcting because errors will soon be noticed. What do you think? - Pointillist (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I see what you're getting at, and I agree that reliable sourcing is certainly a central issue for BLPs. I do accept that IMDb should only be used with caution, and only where a better source cannot be found. However, we do all need to remember that verifiable is not the same as verified, and that it is verifiability which is one of the three core content pillars. If we were to suddenly decide that the only content on WP should be that which is reliably sourced, we would lose the majority of our content! Edwardx (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pratt family

I thought you might be interested to know that wikipedia has an article Pratt family that is not about the family that is the subject of Category:Pratt family. This suggests that something should be changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Frank Lusk Babbott, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Frank Lusk Babbott" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Clare Balding

Thanks for that recent contribution. I'm not certain whether you slightly over-egged the de-linking, but all I have changed is one phrase to make it more felicitous. Harfarhs (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You may well be right. And your contribution is another step forward. It's all good. Edwardx (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Underscores

Hi. I noticed that, in your list of articles created on your user page, you use underscores (_) between given names and surnames. There is absolutely no need to do this, and it just creates unnecessary work for yourself. Obviously I won't be touching your user page, but in article space whenever I come across a link containing horrible underscores, I remove them, because they are unsightly, unnecessary, and make the work of editing just that much harder.

Also, I note your start on Adele Leigh. You say she is notable as an operatic soprano, and refer to her Covent Garden career. But you say nothing of her training, what roles she sang, with whom or under whom, and any recordings she made, etc. We really do need more detail to support the assertion of notability - because right now that's all it is, your assertion. Otherwise, thanks for your good work. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. The underscores are as a result of copying and pasting from User contributions> Articles created. They were generated with underscores, and whilst I could remove them manually, it would be tedious. Yes, they do look inelegant, and I would not choose to use them. Underscores can be very useful in coding, but that's a quite different discussion.
As for Adele Leigh, I should have added an "under construction" template. I am expanding it today, and her notability should now be clear. Yesterday, as I was due to attend the opening night of the new Covent Garden production of Gloriana, and noticed that both she and Frederick Dalberg (who both sang in the original in 1953) did not yet have articles, so perhaps they were a little rushed. As for last night, Susan Bullock and Toby Spence were in fine voice in the leading roles and the chorus were splendid. It is a shame that Britten did not re-work the opera after its rather mixed reception, as there are weaker patches, and it does not reach the heights of Peter Grimes or Billy Budd. Edwardx (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edwardx/Archive_2010-2012&oldid=1140637534"