User talk:Rangoon11/Archive 3

Sentence in Economy of the United Kingdom

SeeConspira - I don't know how to talk since I'm not familiar with Wikipedia. I understand, I'll leave my update removed as in the British Empire page it already talks about the early history and seems more directly relevant there instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeConspira (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it is valid and interesting content for WP, and well sourced, but not, in my view, for the Economy of the United Kingdom article. I agree that the British Empire article would be a good place for it though.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in United Kingdom

Hello, Rangoon11. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alarics (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

List of places known as the capital of the world

Hi Rangoon, I would like to paste here what I just wrote on the talk page to the above article:

"I'm starting to have regrets resurrecting this article, Rangoon, I respect the reverts you just made to my additions, but I think the problem is that the phrase “capital of ...” is distinctly American and may not be particularly useful to the rest of the world. For example, I'm sure most educated editors would agree that the 'Art Capital of the World' is Paris or Florence but bizarrely American sources say NYC. I know NYC (and London) have a number of important art works but I can easily argue the works in the Louvre and the Uffizi are far more culturally important (containing the most notable Da Vinci and Michaelangelo works)."

Would appreciate if you could contribute to the discussion, thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the message, I have replied on the Talk page of the article itself. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for K computer

Hi. I've nominated K computer, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for Mini Hatch (2001–2006)

Hi. I've nominated Mini Hatch (2001–2006), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Donnie Park (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for K computer

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Eurotrain legacy

Dear Rangoon,
You undid my revision in the article on Eurotrain concerning the section heading legacy. I should like to get some more elucidation why you regard legacy as “more appropriate and standard” than repercussions, the term that I had put there.

The reason is that neither the main author of Eurotrain (history) nor I are native English speakers. Both of us have elaborately discussed the corresponding heading on (at?) the German WP, where Rontombontom expanded the article de:Eurotrain. The discussion started when I modified (among several other language details) the German section heading Vermächtnis (which denotes en:bequest in the first place) to Konsequenzen (german, much like engl. consequences). I sensed the translated term as to sharp, although in the German language as well there are examples of its use in the figurative sense that legacy might transport as section header in en:Eurotrain. However, I was not convinced that my initial modification of the heading was more appropiate. Three months passed until I came up with the term Nachwirkungen (see below english translations) as — for me — appropiate section for the German article. When I made this change in March 2011, there came no objection on behalf of Rontombontom. But by now, I realize that his last contribution to the German WP dates from February 2011.

Checking the Meriam-Webster entry for legacy, I dared to modify the section heading legacy in the same manner as the German version. As the translation of "Nachwirkung" (sing.) the dictionary at leo.org proposed five alternatives to me

• aftermath
• backwash
• consequence
• repercussion
• spillover effect

and — as you don't like repercussions — my proposal would be the first of them: aftermath. Would this get your consent? --KaPe (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. Personally I don't like the use of the word 'repercussions' in this context because it implies that the consequences were both unintended and negative. This distinction is not always made clear in the online dictionaries, but my hard copy New Oxford Dictionary of English gives the primary definition of that word as 'an unintended consequence occuring some time after an event or action, especially an unwelcome one'.

'Aftermath' has the same connotations, it is generally used only when the consequences of something are negative, and the New Oxford Dictionary of English primary definition is 'the consequences or after-effects of an event, especially when unpleasant'.

'Legacy' has no implications of bad (or good) consequences and is therefore in my view more neutral and appropriate in this case, and is the word which I have seen used most commonly in WP for such sections of articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi, I've named you as an involved user at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Golden Triangle (UK universities). - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 01:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi Rangoon11, this is just to say that you have been mentioned (in passing) at WP:ANI#User:Thetruthnow2012 and Golden Triangle (UK universities). All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mini Hatch (2001–2006)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:COIN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rangoon11. Thank you. Mtking (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

SAIC

Hi! Thanks for editing the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation page. Would you like to collaborate on improving the page? I think that would be great, so please let me know if you're interested. Fleetham (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, what ideas have you got? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made a page to discuss the collaboration and posted there: User:Fleetham/SAIC. Fleetham (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IP:109.175.241.26. Thank you.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

MEUH Page

--Lm234795 (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Rangoon11. Thank you for your advice and contributions regarding the Mitsubishi Electric US Page.

No worries. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Telecommunications by region

Hi Rangoon11, I needed to undo this recent edit since multiple other articles are linked to the section which was removed. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

George Osborne

Thanks for the help on that article! It's almost only me looking after it, so much appreciated.
Iloveandrea (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brian Leveson

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MediaCity

I spent a long time thinking about the shape of this article, it was extremely misleading and rather unbalanced. Would you care to explain Why you think it is better to have the mish mash it was than the rearrangement I made?--J3Mrs (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You also removed additional material with references. This article contained at least one inaccuracy and failed to mention the ancilliary companies. I have actually read and researched.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but why do you think you can have a go at Rangoon J3Mrs? If anything, the arrangement on the page has become more 'mish mash' since you started editing it. For example, the 'transport' section to MediaCityUK is now considered more important (as it is above the occupants section) than who will actually occupy MediaCityUK. The occupants section should really take up more of the article subject with MediaCityUK being a leased property. I actually feel the page is getting progressively worse and more backwards under your mass editing. It is frustrating as I would like to see this article get to GA status and maybe FA one day but I feel that will be impossible whilst you are making some strange edits. I don't know how Rangoon feels but I'm unhappy. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "have a go" I asked for an explanation. The article is now more coherent. By the way the project started in 2007 not when the BBC signed up. Transport, other businesses and housing are all part of the MediaCity vision. The tenants get plenty coverage. Higher up the article doesn't mean more important. It's important that an article doesn't leap about as it did. a reader would feel the same ground was covered twice.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you spent more time adding to the article rather than endlessly fidgeting with the text and order of the page I wouldn't have a such a big problem. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation as to why you removed cited information and added incorrect informatin and your response was to revert again? Why don't you ask the GM project instread of reverting for a third time?--J3Mrs (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all please stop trying to impose your edits on the article through edit warring. The sections and section order as is is in my view more logical and better conforms to the standard WP approach.

Although I wouldn't entirely agree with Stevo1000, and I do think that a lot of your edits have improve the article by tightening up the text - and have not reverted the vast majority - I do also get the impression of edits now being made for the sake of it. Continually trying to remove as many words as possible from the text does not necessarily improve it and can actually result in meaning being lost or changed, as I noticed happened with some of the edits today.

I feel that the structure of the article is now about right. Certainly the article is not perfect, and certainly any factual inaccuracies should be fixed. However, in my view, the focus should be more on adding richness and detail to the article than fiddling endlessly with the current text.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read you would have seen that I added detail and citations. The structure was poor and the article gave the impression that the TV companies led the development which is not true. I have stopped "fiddling" and I have actually been agonising over a reasonable structure. The article was put together in an incredibly disjointed way, flipping from construction to TV programmes to location to transport, then programmes. You reverted the Greenhouse, the Pie factory and other stuff. I didn't realise how much there was to the project until I did some research for myself.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you really want let's have a discussion on article structure, headings etc on the article talk page. I'm sorry but I am not going to pick through large series of bulk edits to preserve a very small number of edits which I may support. If you re-add the additions which were reverted, minus all of the other structural changes, I will not revert them. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How very patronising, not to say lazy. But it's ok for you to impose a structure? Carry on it isn't improving anything. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to agree on a layout for the page. I've proposed my idea on the talk page [1]. J3Mrs, I'm happy for you to add the material you have added. But the reason I reverted it was that there was no way I was ever going to dissect all those edits. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How nice of you to condescend to let me re-add sourced information after your reverts but you'll have to do it yourself.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian uprising template

Good call on making the "Groups"-category, but don't you think the timeline should be included? Shoplifter (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes I do, the Timeline should now be linked both at the top of the template beside 'Part of the Arab Spring', and from the 'Events' link. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was to quick on the draw. Looks great! (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Superdrug & Kingfisher

Hi there, i don't know why you keep putting the Kingfisher stub at the bottom of the Superdrug page as the company hasn't been part of the group for over 10 years and is completly irrelevant to the company.

The article is not merely about Superdrug in the present but about the entirety of its history. The period of Kingfisher ownership is a very important part of that and the template is highly relevant. It is clear from the template that Superdrug is a former rather than current subsidiary of Kingfisher. This is a very standard approach for company articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Russell Group - research funding

Hello. Ah, yes. I think the trick would be to link to the actual table (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/7_April_2011/attachments/Financial%20data%20for%20UK%20higher%20education%20institutions.pdf) as opposed to the article for the table reference, and clarify that you are referring to total "research grants and contracts" when you say "total research income." With the point on HEFCE funding to Russell Group institutions, if you look at the figures for 2011/12 (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2011/grant1112/summary.htm/), 63%, rather than 83%, of funding is to Russell Group institutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphafoxtrot11 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your message, yes happy to link to the table in the THE rather than the article. I should add that I personally have nothing against including the table of HEFCE funding levels in the Russell Group article below the current table, although I am strongly against the current information being replaced with the HEFCE data, which is considerably narrower in scope (excluding such key sources of funding as industry, charities and the EU) although still interesting. The sentence in the article 'The Russell Group institutions received 82% of the total HEFCE research funding allocation' is now out of date as you say, as is much of the content of the article in fact which is generally in need of a refresh. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Query on content removal

Hi Rangoon11 - I just wanted to query your removal of some content I added to Macfarlanes re awards. My rationale was to bring the entry more in line with other silver circle law firms on the site ie Ashursts, Berwin Leighton Paisner, S J Berwin and Travers Smith. I do not feel that this content is unencyclopedic: it is factual and provides a reader more information about the firm. I was also mindful to ensure everything was correctly referenced. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, it is consistent with the information listed against other firms. I would like to reinstate this content but wanted to contact you for your thoughts to make sure that this is not inappropriate given you seem to be an experienced Wikipedia editor.

I look forward to hearing from you.

KJK2000 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. In terms of WP policy the inclusion of lists of awards such as this in a law firm article is a bit of a grey area. My own view used to be that such lists were OK if properly cited, although it has never been the type of content which I myself would add. Over time my approach has changed however and I now feel them generally to be unencyclopedic and wholly promotional. You are free of course to start a discussion on the article Talk page, where other editors may have a different view.

I note that you only appear to be editing on the Macfarlanes article at present, and many of your edits/attempted edits there appear to be promotional. Do you have any connection with that firm? Rangoon11 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Hmm, I see what you mean about awards being a bit of a grey area. It is factual but could appear to be promotional. But then again, some of the other content focusing on resignations, controversies etc is also factual but could be seen as being derogatory perhaps. I guess it's down to personal perspective. I'll add some of the award detail back in but weave it into the text rather than drawing too much attention to it in its own section.

I work in association with the legal industry and have a particular 'interest' in silver / magic circle firms. I am brushing up my WP skills with this firm as the profile is a bit thin on the ground but I'm sure you find me on other pages soon...

KJK2000 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be carefull

I think you got the edit summary wrong on this edit, while the edit was not an improvement to the article, it was not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and as such should not have been called Vandalism, perhaps you might want to read WP:VAND. Mtking ^(edits) 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The DVLA in Swansea

Hey man, I put the picture next to the section about Yes, Minister because they keep threatening to send Bernard there. It's all good at the top, too. By the way, I was actually prohibited from taking that picture, but I did it anyway. How dd you end up on the DVLA page anyway? Zweifel (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I had the page on my watchlist because I had added a template to it a while back. It strikes me that the article could actually do with an infobox and a bit of an overhaul. Not sure if I can draw up the enthusiasm at present though!Rangoon11 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

MG Motor UK

See here. No problem. Sorry for jumping the gun on this too quickly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will request the article change now so hopefully they can harmonise ASAP. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

B&Q

Hi,

I noticed you made changes to the article as per our short discussion on the talk page and while I had no objections I wanted to ensure I was correct as far as User:K.slauter reverting the edits was concerned. Needless to say; I was ([2]) (it happens a lot ;)).

The B&Q article, as it stands, is unacceptable and while I am interested in bringing it to an encyclopedic standard I'm not interested in doing this while User:K.slauter has editing priviliges as any changes will simply result in disruption. You mention a twin track approach but I think the track that sees User:K.slauter removed from the equation should be expediated.

My suggestion is to ask admin involvement to block User:K.slauter from a length of time they see fit and also semi-protect the page (User:K.slauter will simply use an IP, as has happened in the past). Then we'd be able to address our concerns about the article (and I think we're on the same page so that shouldn't be too much effort).

Let me know your thoughts. Alternatively, if you'd rather not be involved in such action I'll open an WP:AIV myself. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 11:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I now agree that they are not willing to collaborate and are being disruptive. If you want to open an AIV or seek admin involvement I will fully support you, just post me a message letting me know the forum which you have approached and I will add my comments there too. I think it is probably best if you make the initial step as you have been involved with the article for much longer than me and have been able to observe K.slauter in more detail. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to bring this to admin attention but noticed that you've reverted his latest edits. I'll wait and see if there's any comeback from the user and if so raise the report then. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox vs. Lead

Hi! Usually the more specific info goes in the lead sentence vs. the infobox. Also, based on the citation format in your revision people would mistakenly believe that "Park Royal" is not sourced (there was nowhere else in the body of the article that stated that Park Royal was the HQ)

Now that I found an article about the HQ move, I will add a section about that, so now there is no need to have a citation in the lead sentence. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. My own view is that detailed information about the HQ should go in the infobox, and the opening senetence should just state city and country. This is an approach followed by the articles of virtually all of the FTSE 100 constituents. My reasoning is that a detail like 'Park Royal', although encyclopedic, is of limited relevance to understanding a major multinational company like Diageo. Most people even in the UK will not have heard of Park Royal, and the key point for them will be that the HQ is in London. This is even more true for non-UK readers.

The new Head Office section which you have created is very helpful. It's a pity that we don't have a photo of the HQ building to add at present.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to put up photo requests for both the current Park Royal facility and the old Central London facility - hopefully people will get the photos WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, good idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I am new to the wikipedia community and please correct me if this does not belong here, but i would like to know why you keep un-editing my nformation? is it not needed. Please reply and sorry for the inconvenience #LuLxFakie (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. Essentially the article Unity (cable system) contained a large amount of information which was promotional and uncited, which I have attempted to remove. It also contained quite a lot of unnecessary repetition and generally had the appearance of having been cut and pasted from a press release. The article still requires a large amount of work to bring it up to standard, but in its prior condition was in my view unacceptable.

There are lots of different policies regarding content in Wikipedia. It is not necessary to become an expert in these rule in order to edit but a couple of policies which you might find it useful to take a quick look at are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your input on the Huawei article

Hi there, I noticed that last week you made some constructive edits to the Huawei article, so I thought to approach you with a request. If you look at the discussion page and history of the Huawei article, you'll see that I've worked off and on this year to improve the article. I'm what I think you would call a COI editor -- I have been working on the page at their behest. I have at all times sought consensus before implementing big changes, and this has worked for a time. Recently, an editor named Ckt2packet has made a number of edits, some introducing new material whose content is debatable, but whose formatting and English usage leave something to be desired. All of this is happening in a single section, "Security concerns". With advice from another uninvolved editor, I've posted a request to Ckt2packet trying to find a way to compromise on this section. So far, Ckt2Packet has not replied, and I wonder if you would be able to provide an objective perspective on the compromise I have suggested in my note on the Huawei talk page? Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes I'm happy to take a look. I will post my thoughts at the discussion page tomorrow.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you again for your thoughts on the Huawei edits. I wanted to let you know that I made the changes to the "Security concerns" section, however this was reverted by Ckt2packet earlier today. I have responded on the talk page and changed the section back, and I hope that they will be open to discussing before making further edits. If you are able to offer any advice in how to proceed should Ckt2packet revert the edits again, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on the Shanghai article

Hello. I saw you undid my updated version of the intro on Shanghai. Unfortunately, I was not logged in at the time of editing, so perhaps my IP wasn't trustworthy enough. However, I strongly disagree with the quality of the Shanghai intro since it is outdated by 2011 standards. For example, it is not just a global city but a leading global city. It is not just a major financial centre, it is one of the top ranking financial centres. Most major updates on the Shanghai article has not been added since 2008, when Shanghai ranked several spots lower on several lists. But as of 2011 it has increased its influence on the world to a massive influence. This is the reason to why I changed the intro to give readers a more fair view on Shanghai's role in the world today. Perhaps it was done a bit too hasty. But if your opinion in the same as mine regarding Shanghai, there are enough sources and information available to confirm previously stated facts. I'd appreciate your help on updating the intro for the Shanghai article. Best regards --Jonipoon (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I think that the addition of words like 'massive' was a bit OTT but am certainly happy to help improve the lead of the Shanghai article. It's probably best to discuss changes on the Talk page of the article itself though. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bedford, Vauxhall

Thanks for making Template:Vauxhall Motors so much better (SO much) than my already improved version. Much appreciated, and I may ask your advice for some future efforts of mine. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd be happy to help, feel free.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

NSN Employees

I think next time is better you to check the IP from which is made correction: 62.159.77.160 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.112.211 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't make any difference, citations for that sort of info are needed whoever the editor.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please revisit your stance on a new Board Based Global Protests Article

Dear Rangoon11,

Here is a link the the discussion you voted on that I would plea you to review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%22Occupy%22_protests#Proposal_to_X_all_the_merging_and_cutting.2C_and_instead_have_a_NEW_UNIFIED_ARTICLE_on_.22Global_Protests_2011.22

I feel that my proposal was completely misunderstood because everyone seems to think that I proposed that list of possible topics to include, and that wasn't part of the proposal, that was from someone else named Timeshifter.

I do not agree with Timeshifter about including all of that content. It is not pertinent to the article that I want to write.

I do hope you are able to understand my proposal and of course it is ok if you do not agree with it, but I would like you to address my actual proposal as opposed to a random list of unrelated articles that someone else posted.

Thank you,

Xacobi (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy London

Great work on Occupy London. Carry on being excellent :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Huawei suggestions

Hello Rangoon11, I've been continuing to offer suggestions for improvements to the Huawei article and currently have a couple of requests on the talk page there for editors to provide feedback. As you have previously been helpful, and are now familiar with the article, I wonder if you would mind offering some input. The suggestions that I am currently seeking feedback for are changes to the Treatment of workforce and customers & Security concerns sections. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion occurring for the Occupy London article

• There's a discussion occurring regarding the article you created, Occupy London occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Did you read my previous edit summary? In this case, WP:BRD can be applied here, but I certainly don't want WP:BRRRRD. I won't revert Philly again, as I'll be violating 3RR, but can you just discuss more at ANI, and which pages you want to keep, redirect, and delete? HurricaneFan25 13:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why can't BRD be applied here? ANI is not even the correct forum for a discussion of this nature. You are attempting to delete a number of articles which include multiple third party citations through redirects imposed through edit warring. VERY poor form. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, though it doesn't matter whether ANI is the right forum to discuss this or not. I agree that it should have been done at the article's talk page, though it's at ANI now anyway, by an established admin — I don't what this to become Shakespeare, so I'll just step out of this for now. HurricaneFan25 13:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but I'm puzzled as to why they have started a discussion there. The problem with redirects of the type which you just attempted is that all of the article content is effectively lost to readers as if the article had been deleted. I personally feel that in these cases some discussion is needed before such a step is taken. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept that response, though I already said, I'm not going to involve myself in this situation unless I see something that I would like to comment on or am concerned about. HurricaneFan25 13:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your much appreciated work improving our articles, including your recent editing on the "Occupy" protests. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Principle Hi-Tech companies

Dear rangoon11, I want to thank you for your efforts in modifying Template:Principle Hi-Tech companies. You are doing a great job there, but I think you should rename this template to something like Leading Hi-Tech companies or Principal Hi-Tech Companies. Worth to mention, I think it is better to use the term Hi-Tech in the title rather Information Technology, since a lot of companies in the template are not connected to IT. --Wisamzaqoot (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, the problem with 'high tech', in English at least, is that it can include such diverse areas as pharmaceuticals, aerospace, biotechnology, nanotechnology etc. Which current components of the template do you feel don't fall within the category of 'information technology'?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of new topic at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Hi Rangoon,

I've added a topic at the DRN about MrRhythm's actions at the UK article; added you just because you helped revert him and joined the talk page discussion. Thanks, NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 15:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I fully support your posting there. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Amendment of Mini redirects

Hi, re edits such as this and this - it is not necessary to make these changes (there are no double redirects to Mini (marque), see here), and in some cases such changes may not be desirable, see WP:NOTBROKEN. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Chinese car company articles

I noticed that you have changed the titles of several articles concerning Chinese car companies. I like them all a lot, I would have done it long ago if I hadn't been worried about the ensuing battle with one particular editor. I would like to make one point though: To have a little conversation about the name change would be good in pre-empting any challenges, thereby leaving the articles safely with their correct titles. I'll keep my eyes peeled. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is about that MrRhythm changing the GDP values in the infobox at United Kingdom to his own values. He or she is at it again, so I did as recommended at DRN and took it to ANI. Just letting you know as you helped revert him and joined in the talk page discussion. Cheers, NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 01:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

James Caan

Hi! I notice you've done quite a bit of work on the James Caan article. If it's any help, I was marginally involved with the article a couple of years ago, at which point it was quite a strong piece. I returned to it recently and was surprised at just how completely different it was, so I looked through the History and discovered that actually the old content had been entirely replaced on 28 March 2011 by the user "Liz Goldie". (It may just be a coincidence that when you Google "Liz Goldie" you find a "communications executive" working for James!) Obviously you've done a lot to improve things since then, but if you did want to draw in any of the old material, I thought I'd let you know that there's a lot in the pre-28 March version.

Stephen 86.185.132.232 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)