User talk:Swanny18 - Knowledge (XXG)

1139:

specific case of these four articles, coverage of Alaska state government appears to follow an importance order more applicable to the structure of Knowledge (XXG) than to the structure of the government itself. If the issue really is a lack of explanation on the talk page, there's very few of us pursuing this specific issue, with probably more work to do than time to do it. Therefore, it's likely I'm going to miss talk page discussions in order to make sufficient progress. Most of these articles will continue to languish as stubs that no one gives a shit about until someone does something. What you did amounts to just trying to make the problem go away.

1062:. Draft the RFC in your user space. Be very specific as to the question you are asking. Leave no doubt as to what the issue is. If you ask a vague question, you’ll get vague, useless responses. If you want the policy to be a certain way, be clear about it. By drafting the RFC in your user space you can seek the advice of others before going live. Remember, real policy change comes very slowly within the WP community. Even, if as I believe our WP title policy, is completely dysfunctional, it will be a long time before we see substantive change. Patience within the WP policy realm is a virtue. -- 2583: 2074: 2018: 3127: 3039: 2951: 2791: 2703: 2427: 2116: 1920: 1038:

powerful argument. If the current article title is doing no harm to WP—ie. we aren’t calling dogs, cats—there must be a really sound policy argument for changing an existing title. Unfortunately, all that being said, our WP titling policies, guidelines and MOS are really inconsistent and almost impossible to interpret and apply across a wide variety of articles. (I’ve been pretty vocal about that at

2230: 758:. The opening section now refers to a "cruiser", without previously mentiioning one. Also, your claim that the German cruiser squadron attempted to return to Germany after the outbreak of war is simply wrong - von Spee himself said "I cannot get home" - I can dig out a reference if you want one. I don't mean to put you off, but I'm not sure you've improved the article much. 2876: 385:). The article in question should have clear references that I or any editor can check to see if it fits Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for an encyclopedic article. What do I have in mind? Making sure the article fits Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for an encyclopedic article (i.e. making sure it is not a bunch of BS off the top of someones head). 402:. If you are trying to make a case for a Knowledge (XXG) article based on the merit that "you" think it should exist, or that editing an articles to make it more encyclopedic is "having an axe to grind", then you have missed several Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and policy pages along the way. I would suggest starting with 2212:

The 15 minute guideline is with respect to tagging an article for deletion, not making constructive improvements to the article. Categorizing an article is not considered "trashing someone's work". Since you don't seem to understand how article categorization works, I'll patrol the article at a later

801:

issues floating around. Your prompt was timely. As Kurt W himself might have done if faced with a temporary blockage, I have tried to offer a contribution to the discussion by pointing to already well-trodden path that may have been overlloked to try and get things pointing in the right direction!.

1992:

Hi, to save going round in circles, I've proposed a non-conflicting title for your new article. If it isn't exactly right, you can move it to something you find more suitable, or I can do so for you if you aren't sure of the procedure. "Dazzle ship" however was and is not available - you reused it

1049:

in WP. Well, first, understand there are no, third party, neutral arbitrators at WP. We are all editors, and even admins are editors with opinions. Admins perform duties within the bounds of individual WP processes and essentially only assess local consensus on any issue. To bring the issue of

1037:

When I close an RM, I first look for a clear consensus of support or opposition to the suggested move. If editors are opposing a move and their arguments have any basis in policy or guidelines, then their opposes tend to lead to a no consensus move. When it comes to article titles, status quo is a

1033:

Swanny18, I sincerely appreciate questions like this as they force me to reflect on my WP philosophy and how that philosophy has manifested itself in individual WP processes. Your question, (and conclusion) about the lack of consensus around diacritics is astute. As a community, we don’t have a

376:

Am I an astronomer? Do I belong to an Astronomical Society? Am I unfamiliar with the term or the concept? errrr....... other than the fact that I haul around some very big telescopes to my astronomical society's public outings..... does it mater? Being an expert on the subject does not matter when

492:

As far as I can tell you haven't tried to do anything except add a nag tag and wait for someone else to fix the problem. If you had actually done some work on the article and made a good faith effort to "work with me" on improving it rather than trolling with threats of deletion and nag tags you

1138:

at present has 1,600 stubs. This doesn't include the hundreds more which weren't tagged for the project for whatever reason. Most of these articles exist because of the ease of and/or lack of copyright restrictions on available source material, not necessarily because a need existed. In the

1034:

coherent, consistent policy around the use of diacritics in article titles. You’ve really asked me two questions—What is my RM closing rationale? and How should you proceed to attempt to better establish WP policy re diacritics? This first is easy to answer, the second I can only suggest.

610:

I am not required to discuss noncontroversial edits on the talk page. Your revert of the Legion of Honor image back to your own low resolution image is self serving. Consensus is not required to change images of low quality. You are holding the artticle back with ownership issues that are

2128:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2439:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

934:. There are many reasons, most notably because it is not sufficiently documented, because it should belong to the public domain, because of the unique nature of many aspects of it, because I find it fascinating, and hopefully to help prevent such a thing from happening again. 929:

or support it in some capacity, then the answer is no. Nazism was essentially the embodiment of everything that is wrong with humanity. I am simply documenting history, particularly one of the most important and perhaps the most terrible events in history,

1932:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

825:

and apparently reverted the contents to where it came from. A blank article is never of any use whatsoever to our readers; the proper action is usually to create a redirect in those cases, which I now have done. I hope it was a mistake rather than a

249:

This is the only way i cna get a hold of you you are being unfair there is more evidnace of this man exsisatnace then there bring for jesus oyu let pepole put utter rubbish up on these pages but not the truth how dos this work and how is this fair

127:). These were subsequently reverted elsewhere by others for the same reason. It was perceived as promotional spamming and was not a direct reference. Although it may well be relevant, this wasn't readily apparent. Perhaps this should be discussed on 2100:

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.

2044:

227:

Yeah I've been away for a year of non editing cause I was in Africa, so I've forgotten how to redirect pages and all that. That being said things are very very busy right now and as such I doubt I'll get around to this soon. thanks though

1451: 318:

Almost back to full health again now, thanks, though I've still got to watch my diet for a while. Doubt I'll evcer return to quite the activity levbel I had in the past on the bureaucratic side of Knowledge (XXG), though (too stressful!)

138:). That said, there are plenty of articles which follow this format (as mentioned in the Refs guidelines), or even: ==Notes== and ==Bibliography== subheadings under an umbrella ==References== heading. This is as long as the listed books 3172: 3084: 2994: 2834: 2746: 2467: 2156: 1960: 2104:

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.

2048:

122:

Regarding the book ref you mentioned, it was added in a "Further Reading" section of this article, along with numerous other Liverpool-related articles, by an anonymous IP address over a short space of time. (See

1666:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 733:

Because he made way too much sense. His essay "Do template the regulars," that didn't go over well with the ruling wikipediots one bit. But they couldn't officially block him, so they blocked him unofficially.

559:

with the following edit summary '(You don't prod an article because the plot summary is written badly. You certainly don't do it when a decent plot summary has already been written for it.)'. Please consider

3156:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3068:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2978:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2818:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2730:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2451:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2140:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1944:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 164:

thank you for the courtesy of notifying me of your changes. however, none are particularly correct. please refer to mos:dab for assistance in formatting and creating disambiguation pages. thanks. --

2097: 469:

Hello, I'd like to ask you and a couple of other editors who might be interested in amateur astronomy technology to look at this article and tell me if I've achieved general notability guidelines

2543:

You made two serious accusations on my talk page. I have replied to you and am still waiting for your comments on this. It would be appreciated. I aim for your full satisfaction. Many thanks!

972: 3141: 3053: 2964: 2804: 2716: 2041: 1993:

from an existing correct redirect, so you knew it was already in use, and could easily have checked why it was redirected. I hope this solution is satisfactory to everyone. All the best,

119:

Thanks for the message. Can't remember why I deleted the Three Graces date "2001/02" - it probably was an oversight on my part. Thanks for putting it back in with additional information.

564:

with EvilCouch before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to

1333: 1254: 1329: 1250: 1094: 1888:

Dear Swanny18, I am researching William FitzOsbern and I want to speak to experts on the subject. What can you tell me about him being Earl of Wessex please? Yours aye, Roddy.--

1449:, 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 797:

Hi Swanny, Thanks for getting in touch. I had decided to let the dust settle a while before rejoining the discussion as I was not sure if there might have been some historical

968: 1090: 1705:"and even if not you will be better off for the attempt." Is that a threat or something ? So Knowledge (XXG) allows people to bully somebody else or just your machoism ? 906:

I do not see how I can fix the talk pages of the templates. It does not appear that the same code format is there as when I first posted the project boxes to the pages.

1623:

Thanks for helping to seek sources. Note that if the subject's article does not source his/her relation to Prescot, it needs to be added either to that article or to

627: 1445: 473:

as it is presently written. If it interests you I'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to look at it and if not, thanks for taking the time to read this note.

2652: 2278: 2086: 2030: 1842: 1781: 1736: 1577: 1512: 1343: 1238: 1181: 1104: 2607: 1767: 342:

I think photos attract readers and keep their eyes on the page. I wouldn't take out any nice ones. But adding the photo of the document is a nice idea.

1171: 35: 69: 1167: 994: 552: 541: 1456: 2648: 2274: 1838: 1777: 1732: 1573: 1508: 1339: 1234: 1177: 1100: 3195: 3107: 3017: 2895:. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see 2856: 2768: 2481: 2170: 1974: 1691: 1498: 209: 124: 611:

innaopropriate for a Knowledge (XXG) editor. You may keep your article and I will merely creat a different one under a different title.--

2596: 1409: 1390: 1227:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

971:; I just made sure the incoming links were pointing to the correct people. Numbering for these very old earldoms is a bit fraught (see 512:

I visited the place for 2 days and know sod all about it - hence the brevity of my entry. It appears to have been removed now anyway.

1899: 1559: 266: 2900: 2191: 697:), each saying essentially the same thing about how bad it is. Only you have returned it each and every time. Whose being stubborn? 89:! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the 1246: 1042:). It always seems to come down to local consensus on any given article without regard to any consistency in policy application. 1321: 419: 390: 366: 2395: 1059: 1039: 45:

and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

3191: 3103: 3013: 2852: 2764: 2611: 2477: 2166: 1970: 1722: 1687: 3165: 3077: 2987: 2827: 2739: 2460: 2149: 1953: 1336:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1174:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1097:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 74: 54: 26: 2896: 1835:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1774:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1729:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1570:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1505:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1231:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1082: 528: 30: 2510: 2234: 964: 134:

As far as Notes/Refs go, I've been lead to believe from Knowledge (XXG) guidelines that inline citations are preferrable (

1471: 64: 2638: 449: 2090: 2034: 1678:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

79: 3177: 3089: 2999: 2839: 2751: 2472: 2161: 1965: 1683: 925:

Thanks for the help. As for your question, I am not sure what you are asking me. If your question is whether I am a

415: 386: 362: 1228: 2337: 685:

I have made more "proposals". Feel free to weigh in. Note that three separate users have removed the current image (

2603: 2081: 2065: 1827:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1766:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1721:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1558:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1497:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1320:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1158:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1405: 590:

No worries. It was a pretty awful summary and the guidelines of the Knowledge (XXG) are pretty arcane. Have fun!

2391: 381:

an article. And creating an article from your own knowledge of the subject is actually discouraged (please read

94: 49: 2264: 774: 763: 498: 478: 213: 3153: 3065: 2975: 2815: 2727: 2448: 2237:

in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Knowledge (XXG).

2137: 1941: 86: 1413: 1394: 3213: 2506: 2054: 1998: 1001: 616: 441: 2642: 2268: 516: 254: 33:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the 2880: 2383: 2025: 2009: 1895: 739: 277: 262: 233: 1679: 798: 2634: 1636: 892: 573: 347: 2904: 1891: 258: 59: 975:

spawned by the business), but in this case, the renumbering seems to have brought us in line with the

822: 2625:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2251:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1710: 1706: 1466: 1067: 150: 3135: 3047: 2958: 2798: 2710: 2435: 2333: 2124: 1928: 1910: 1655: 1646: 2912: 1986: 1828: 1144: 939: 911: 759: 749: 595: 561: 494: 474: 3149: 3061: 2971: 2811: 2723: 2444: 2133: 1937: 1675: 1659: 1135: 2626: 2498: 2050: 1994: 1502: 998: 612: 524: 325: 306: 192: 183: 165: 2195: 827: 651: 411: 2260: 2194:. You are not permitted to leave rude messages on my talk paage when I'm just doing my job per 817:

On the subject of Wallander, I wasn't planning to take part in the actual discussion, but with

3232: 2668: 2589: 2582: 2525: 2410: 2352: 2294: 1858: 1797: 1752: 1593: 1528: 1359: 1290: 1197: 1120: 958: 835: 735: 229: 98: 3161: 3073: 2983: 2823: 2735: 2456: 2145: 1949: 1671: 1663: 135: 90: 3184: 3096: 3006: 2846: 2758: 2548: 1632: 1269: 1159: 984: 888: 850: 807: 569: 548: 343: 179: 3164:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3157: 3076:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3069: 2986:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2979: 2826:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2819: 2738:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2731: 2459:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2452: 2199: 2187: 2148:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2141: 1952:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1945: 1674:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1667: 1055: 565: 407: 403: 1628: 1460: 1063: 702: 655: 463: 146: 2892: 2888: 382: 145:

Sorry about the long-winded response. Glad you're also doing some 'cleaning up'. Cheers!

2645:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2271:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 659: 142:. I don't have any objections - a reference in any style is better than nothing at all. 2908: 2325: 1140: 935: 907: 591: 556: 437: 128: 39:, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type 2884: 470: 2927: 2679: 2659: