User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2009/Jun

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

Eton College

Hello, you have put an "original research" tag on Eton College. Presumably you are not accusing the whole article of being OR? Could you be more specific? Thanks. Alarics (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article contains a lot of uncited claims, in several sections, including (but not limited to) Overview, History, School Terms, Boys' Houses, Incentives and Sanctions, Prefects, Drama, Celebrations, School Magazines and In Popular Culture. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look at it, thanks. Alarics (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have now looked at it and I agree some of those sections are devoid of citations, though they don't mostly look to me like original research. I suspect the sources, especially for the History section, are to be found in the four books listed under "Bibliography", and I imagine somebody took the view that just listing those books at the end would suffice. I would be inclined to put separate tags on the worst offending sections, rather than one that appears to damn the whole article, which I think is a bit excessive for an article that does already have 33 footnotes. I see also that "Eton College is a showcase article at The Schools Portal, as it has been identified as one of the best school articles on Wikipedia", so it surely can't be that bad. Alarics (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read the template, it refers to "original research or unverified claims" – in this case, it's mainly unverified claims. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag states "please see talk page for details" but no details are give there. Therefore I am removing the tag. Viewfinder (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's just childish, because you saw the details above. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please put the details on the article's talk page. Your use of the word "childish" breaches WP:CIV. Viewfinder (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The details are on the talkpage, and have been for some short while.
Your petty behaviour (you can see my concerns, very clearly written above, in black text—you didn't need to remove the tag, you just did it because you could—that's childish) quite justified my use of the wording I employed above. If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to request arbitration ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I removed the tag because it referred me to the talk page for details, where I found nothing whatsoever. There are still no details, just a list of offending sections. Viewfinder (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There are very clear details. The sections I listed contain unverified claims, which will require citations. It was either that or delete them completely. What sort of details would you feel happy with? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There are no details whatsoever, just a list of sections. Please give specific examples. Much of the material comes from "Eton How it Works" which is listed in the Bibliography. Viewfinder (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have provided some examples. I hope that that will be sufficient detail. If material comes from the book you point out above, then it should be cited properly, in-line with the text. Suppose I want to find out more about the prefect system—as the article currently stands, how would I know where to look? How would I verify the info there? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. I thought you should know that I have been called a lot of things, but never sound. Usually it is drunk or stupid...Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Angharad James

Please explain NPOV tag in Angharad James. I have tried to improve on the first draft and you have left no explanation on the talk page.D22 (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Surely I need to say something about why she is remembered to justify the notability criterion? My citations Nia Mai Jenkins and Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan provide justification for my statement that she is remembered as a poet. The former in particular is titled as account of her life and work but deals in the main with her poetry.D22 (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Europe

Since Kinnock has become Minister for Europe, and yet she is not in the cabinet, are we to assume it is the position that has been dropped from that 'attends cabinet on agenda' role? No-one seems to have noticed. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

She's not listed on the official list, so one assumes that she has no Cabinet rights at all. Her predecessor complained that despite the rights, she'd only attended once since being appointed, so perhaps they've just scrapped the idea. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Saying that, Kinnock was adamant last night that she still held her position as MEP (until July 13, I believe). As they said then, you can't be a sitting member of both the domestic and European legistlature; this might suggest she hasn't yet been appointed into the House of Lords (officially). Not that it really matters, since either way, she is not on the cabinet list. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, she's getting on a bit, must be becoming a bit geriatric Dunno, but you're right, she can't be both at once. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

A discussion here on whether or not hereditary members of the House of Lords count as automatically notable is underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). This message is being sent to everyone who has expressed interest in AfDs related to this, whatever their opinion on the matter. Please ensure that your comments are well thought-out and based on more than "I like the peerage system" "I don't like the peerage system but it exists so must be important" "I don't like the peerage system" and the like. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

William Brougham, 2nd Baron Brougham and Vaux

Hello. What do you find confusing or unclear about this article? Regards, Tryde (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was the wrong tag, I meant to click on {{copyedit}} – the spelling/grammar was awful. But you've cleared it up, well done :) ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

File:A-ChannelLogo.png

I've removed the deletion notice from this file, because you marked it as a disputed fair use image. Since it's marked as free, and not fair use, any disputes about it should go to WP:PUF. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ministerial Code

Hi there - are you still planning to do some stuff on this for GA (eg. the Baker book?) Let me know. I've still got it on hold, and am happy to keep it there if there are plans afoot. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hamilton—sorry to be such a bore, but I've got a lot of work pressures at the moment, and I'm unlikely to have any length of time in the immediate future. I reckon you'd better fail me for now ;) and I'll return to it after the summer when I'll have more flexibility. Thanks for all your help, though!! ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I failed it as per your suggestion. Like you, if and when I get a chance I'll try and do some work on it, and hopefully it will get another go as a nomination some time. BTW I moved it to Ministerial Code (United Kingdom). Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Max and Jakezing

They're at it again. Max and Jakezing have always been like this. Nothing will change until they are blocked for this reason and learn they can't be arguing over pointless material here. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I've given him an unequivocally final warning, and after that, it's straight to ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:MaxMux

Hello. As you are probably aware this user has once again reverted a number of edits I made during the day. I think another block is required. Regards, Tryde (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into it. Thanks for letting me know. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 20:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Markhurd/hidetopcontrib.js fixed

FYI It is fixed. There was a MediaWiki update and the (Top) flag changed from being bolded with <strong> to using a classed span and CSS styles. I also added userHideAllSubsequent, which when =true will also hide all but the most recent edit, so it is more like watchlists. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks so much!! ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I note you're manually copying my code to your monobook.js: FYI I have fixed another bug. Mark Hurd (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jakezing

Jakezing continues to fuel the fire. I've given him one final warning before I push for a block. See here. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I figured I might want to check to see if you put any warnings about me up... No I didn't. GSK just wants ot have me banned... and he knows it.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You deserve to be banned. Remember WP:BATTLE. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I find that offensive and therefor is a violation of NPA--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's not a violation of NPA. Make sure you read what exactly what Wikipedia considers an NPA to be. Furthermore, you should not have baited Max to begin with. You were in the wrong for that, and if you do it again, you will be reported. And if TreasuryTag reads this, the reporting may start earlier than expected. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 05:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jazeking, don't be pathetic, of course it's not a violation of NPA. I'm going to look at your contribs now. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 06:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I don't need this cluttering up my talkpage any more. (archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 07:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone

I also didn't like the tone of your message when you so quickly deleted a newly created page without asking one why one had done it. Cup of tea, perhaps? One can not stand on a mountain and ignore comments from below. As these comments will also be deleted, lest they scar your Wikipedia profile as being a fine, upstanding—without a smirch on his character—editor, I can only wish you well. How's the view from the top of the mountain, BTW? --andreasegde (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My talkpage history is fully available to everybody, click here to find it. As you will see from my talkpage rules, which are automatically displayed every time anybody (including me) tries to edit, I say, "Please don't be rude, unpleasant or nasty – I'll delete any such material."
Your original message included something along the lines of, "You are heavy-handed, and obviously an expert, so I'll direct any enquiries to you." That was un-necessarily combative, assumed bad faith, and was generally sarcastic.
Your second message was along the lines of, "I'm right, you're wrong." And I have no time for such communications.
Your latest message, above, is rather silly; and with that, I have no interest in pursuing the matter further. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And neither have I. We agree, which is always a good thing.--andreasegde (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux

Can I suggest you step away from this one? Ideally he'll be turned into a productive member of the wiki-community, but he's shown he doesn't deal well with a massive barrage of criticism at once (which is entirely reasonable). So may I suggest that to avoid the appearance of "ganging up" or whatever you avoid commenting on his talkpage for the time being? Instead filter any problems you see through me, as User:Tryde is doing, and I'll present them. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll understand that it is not "a massive barrage of criticism at once" – I am making entirely clear and reasonable points (as are you), and if he doesn't = won't understand them, it's either an insoluble language issue or deliberate prevarication.
However, it seems increasingly likely that he won't be an issue much longer, anyway... ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 12:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Beith withdrawn

Ironically (perhaps) it was an MP using Twitter from the floor of the Commons who told me Beith had withdrawn ;) doktorb wordsdeeds 18:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was watching the Guardian live blog, and didn't see it, so it had to come out. It's now been confirmed that they've all pulled out except Young and Bercow (God forbid...) anyway! ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, the joys of using new media to get the news first =) It's typical of me to think now that we need to review citation and source policies based on examples like this? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2009/Jun&oldid=1166514859"