User talk:Skol fir/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Winnipeg

Hello there Skol-fir I hope you have been good. Was wondering if its possible to fix all the dead links you added to the Winnipeg article (its a GA article)- as per WP:Burden its up to the person that restores the material to provided "VALID" references. Copy and pasting old dead links it not valid and its most likely why they were removed to begin with.Moxy (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO i see your last edit - I will link up the ref...Moxy (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I must have been anticipating your comment! :-) --Skol fir (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL I think all is ok now - I do find it odd that not one is listed at Sister City International Listings - Directory.Moxy (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Good teamwork, Moxy! I am just fine. Actually, I had not gone that extra level as you did, into the embedded links on the Nordman page, so I appreciate your help on this! The reason not one is listed at SCI is explained in my text at the head of the section -- "Sister Cities International, which is limited to international or national cities that have an agreement with American cities." -- [since considered superfluous and justifiably removed by Nikkimaria]. That means they are just monitoring those cities with an American partner. They don't care about the rest of the world! lol

Remember what Bush II said in other words, "You're either with us, or against us." (Whew! I just checked and you are Canadian. Thank goodness I wasn't talking to a " 'merican"!) --Skol fir (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hey I'm talking to the admin who removed the flag icons. Join me on my talk page, I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, Krazytea(talk) 02:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Hey, I am happy to discuss and explain why we don't use flag icons, but you seriously need to watch edit summaries like this one. It's important to comment on the edits and not the editor. I'd appreciate an apology for what you said there. Thanks. --John (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the discussion you mentioned was not a proper "Rfc", it was simply a series of responses to a question about flag icons in "sister city sections". I did not find it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment or here: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, for global discussions regarding policy or style affecting articles throughout Wikipedia. Never once does WP:MOSICON mention sister cities, never mind Canadian Sister Cities. I have a big problem with someone charging unannounced through all Cdn cities and removing flag icons with unhelpful edit summaries like "deflag". The word "obsessed" was correct for my impression at the time. In retrospect, it was a bit harsh, so I personally apologize to you, John, for using that adjective "obsessed" and reword the summary as "some editor has single-handedly removed these [flag icons] from all Cdn cities without asking anyone!". That is now a neutral observation based on what I perceived at the time, without the foreknowledge that ANY discussion of this matter in "Canadian Sister Cities" sections had ever existed.

Even the Calgary list of sister cities, with Quebec City as the sister city, had a non-controversial flag of Canada next to Quebec City (which you, John, decided to remove along with all the others). There was never any objection raised to that flag icon, on that Talk Page. So, in Canada, it is not controversial at all to have country flags defining the country of origin. Canada is not the UK, since we try to resolve issues amicably, and on the whole, I think we succeed. --Skol fir (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hello Skol fir,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

timing of level 4 warnings

Alright, I blocked him based on the previous level 4 warning you had issued. But consider that you responded to his subsequent vandalism with another warning. Like (I suspect) most other AIV-reviewing admins, I go by the timing of the last warning issued (and, in this case, several hours had gone by).

I agree that this user was asking to be blocked, but we need to be clear about what we mean to both vandals and ourselves. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a tricky one. This pesky user is trying to dance around the rules as much as possible, including mixing up his types of edits (between adding POV content and removing content), so my warnings tried to cover both these tactics. The last single edit was particularly egregious, because it involved removing the code for the Ref template that is required to view all the references for the entire article. I needed to respond to that drastic move. Sorry if it complicated the picture for you, but what else was I to do, ignore it? --Skol fir (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What galls me in AIV reports is when several "final" warnings have been issued before someone bothered to report to AIV. Before I was an admin, when I did recent changes and anti-vandal work, that was the very first reaction I had to any vandalism beyond the last warning. I'm not faulting you in particular for this, as I do see how this guy is being tricky (maybe something like this should go to AN/I where there's less of a time concern and the scope of the page is broader, although the response would take longer). Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So, if this user continues his disruption to this article after the recent block expires, I have another avenue of approach to get a more lasting resolution to this problem -- AN/I. BTW, I have added material to this same article in the past, from both sides of the issue, backed by reliable sources, so I have shown my determination as an experienced editor to provide balance to the article. That is why I cannot understand when someone does not even venture into the Discussion Page, when I already initiated a discussion under the very topic in question in February of 2011! No one has yet responded to my attempt to start an honest discussion on the issue, at the Talk Page. --Skol fir (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Princess William

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

--Zoeydahling (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of my contribution about Peter Green's equipment

Dear Skol fir, I feel you are being rather harsh with me over my contribution about Peter Green’s equipment. The facts I gave are true -I was there, watching him perform , on a number of occasions. You surely could have left the material in place ,and said it required citation- what I posted was hardly contentious or malicious.

You have not removed a previous editors statements about Fender Amplification for example, and he has not given citations for his statements, and, incidentally, if my statements contain unexplained technical jargon, then so do his eg “two by fifteen cabinets “

My intention was to give the maximum amount of information in the minimum space, Some encyclopedias do this ,-Penguin Dictionary of Popular Music for example I did not consider my style particularly conversational I’m sorry it doesn’t fit with your taste

Surely the point of Wikipedia is to allow people to improve on what has gone before .If my” sloppy editing “ offends, then someone who feels strongly about it is perfectly free to amend it !But more important is the information my text contains .

So, I would like you to reconsider your decision and I leave you with this quote from Wikipedia :

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.

Regards Dot18 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I was aware of other edits you have made at the page for Peter Green (musician), so I was not referring to all your edits, just the one in question. It just seemed that the addition of this extra technical information was just thrown in, like an afterthought, in an anecdotal fashion, and in the small space allotted for edit summaries, I needed to make my point. Wikipedia does not allow personal observations to be added to articles, without some form of proof. Anyone could have added what you did without any basis.

Your addition(s) on this edit were sloppy. For example: He also used a Sunburst Fender Strat occasionally (eg Free concert in Hyde Park London ,1968,and on his lap doing slide parts ,when in the studio recording Albatross ) -- note the improper spacing, incomplete phrases tacked together willy-nilly without proper grammar structure, use of eg without proper punctuation (MOS:ABBR). -- ... (an Orange Matamp 100W valve unit with two 4 X 12 Orange cabinets- as did the whole band under, some sort of promotional arrangement with the company in 1968 - without any effects , other than a separate Orange valve spring reverb unit inserted after the pre- amp stage of the 100 W amp . What is that last rambling mumbo-jumbo supposed to mean? You must remember that readers of an encyclopedia are coming here to be informed, not confused and annoyed by incoherent phrases tacked on without much thought for the readability. Also, this extra detail would be better presented in a side-bar, or extra paragraph specifically dealing with the technical specifications of all his equipment, so that not every reader has to wade through incomprehensible jargon to proceed through the article. It's like hitting a poor stretch of road with potholes and mud while riding your Harley over an otherwise smooth highway.

I could not leave the information as it was, because it looked out of place and "slapped together on a whim." If you have serious additions like this to make, please find a proper source to back up your claims. I realize that the line about the Fender amps also needs a citation, and after 2 years standing without one, should also be deleted. --Skol fir (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Skol, fir Thanks for your response if I may quote from it :

"I was aware of other edits you have made at the page for Peter Green (musician), so I was not referring to all your edits, just the one in question."

I don’t understand what you mean by this. You removed both my edits To the best of my knowledge (of course, I could be going senile- had you considered that possibility before criticising my rambling style ?) I have only ever made two edits to this article , approx 10 minutes apart on same day and you removed everything !.

Even if you reject my first edit on the grounds of grammar etc the second edit could have stood alone, even if you felt it did require citation

Again I quote you  : Wikipedia does not allow personal observations to be added to articles, without some form of proof.

Yet don’t the Wiki rules say that it has to be verifiable, not that it has to be verified ?

Finally ,I only recall editing one other article (not in any way related to this) about 3 years ago ,in my entire Wiki editing career , so I feel entitled to be treated as a newbie and you should not expect me to know all the rules and protocols .

Regards again Dot18 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, Dot18, you got me there. I was correcting another article for redundancy of information, and that was where I had only changed a single edit of many for a given person. For yours, I indeed reverted both, because they were part of the same block. However, on the matter of verifiability, the rules do state that if material that could be seen as questionable (too much detail, possible a figment of someone's imagination) or controversial (subject to argumentation), must have a citation, which we can then verify by going to the source. Yes, such material, like all the technical refinements about equipment that you added, is questionable and needs to be proven. Why should the reader have to go look for proof (or editors like myself who have some knowledge of the rules), when it is your duty to do so when challenged for evidence of the facts.

I encourage you to contribute more information on Green's equipment, if you can find some source that we can check for correctness and maybe some explanation for what all those numbers really mean musically. There must be someone who has written down such facts, in a biography or published article in a magazine. Just relying on your memory of the technical specs is not enough, when we don't even know your connection to Peter Green (just spectator or actual band member). That is why the rules are there, so that if a reader wants to learn about Peter Green, the information at Wikipedia is reliable. Wikipedia is like a collector of other published facts, not the creator of them.

About the blue dotted boxes, they are created when you start a paragraph with a space, putting that para. into a box. I fixed it above by removing those two spaces. --Skol fir (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Skol fir,

Though I wish I had been playing in Fleetwood Mac in 1969 and certainly at a couple of gigs I almost felt compelled to approach the stage and ask if I could , I was only a spectator (this was implied in the first line of my first post to you I think ) However, it does beg the question: what would happen if Peter himself had edited the page and listed the equipment he used it would be rejected and he wouldn’t be as stubborn as me- he would have given give up !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fleetwood_mac_peter_green_5.jpg

this is a link(hopefully) to a photo in which Peter is standing in front of Fender amplifiers(but you have to know Fender amps when you see them ) as described in the edit (by some other person ) you recently removed Incidentally 2 X 15 means each speaker cabinet contains two fifteen inch diameter speakers ( most guitar players would know this-it’s not really technical stuff ) The guitar he is using is the Fender 6 string bass guitar to which I referred in my second edit deleted by you ,it may look like a Strat ,but closer observation reveals that the switches are very different It looks like a six string guitar, but again close observation shows the strings to be much thicker than on a conventional guitar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_Bass_VI

this is a link to that guitar, and if you scroll through it you will see a mention of Peter Green using it I also note that much of this article is very technical , but none of this article has citations. Would you seriously propose the entire article be removed ?I hope not. And yet presumably this means it can’t be used as a source to cite something !!

Regards yet again ,and thanks for explaining and curing the dotted box problem Dot18 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Montreal shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceska Zbrojovka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)