User talk:Lewisskinner/Archive Apr 2007

For individual discussions, please see my Archive index

No problem

I've just made maps (linked) for the West Midlands, and Cheshire. South Yorkshire is next on my list, followed by West Yorkshire - might have SY done by the evening! Jhamez84 11:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Sheffield WikiProject talk page. I didn't take any time at all to produce (I'm getting used to the process now!). Thanks for the contact. Jhamez84 14:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgot about a Sheffield City Region map. I've seen the source material, and it is possible to produce. I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Jhamez84 01:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on Sheffield districts

Hi Lewis, would you take a look at the discussion that I started at WP:SHEFF on what form of infobox (or other) to use on Sheffield districts. I am trying to establish consensus before we move forward. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shown within South Yorkshire

Hi again Lewisskinner.

Just a line about the local mapping in the UK infobox place - it was the intention of the project (inline with the county naming conventions) that we use a local map only if the settlement formed a consistuent part of that maps intended territory.

Your edits to articles about settlements outside of SY are causing a little stir amongst some editors, as the infobox states clearly "Shown within South Yorkshire", and is against the intentions of the infobox roll-out. It is my intention to create local county maps for each part of England, but as I'm sure you can appreciate, this takes time. I'd be more than happy to work on maps for areas south of South Yorkshire (Notts etc), though in the meantime, in my opinion, it would be more prudent and less contentious to use the default UK map until I can upload newer versions.

Any questions, feel free to get in touch of course. Jhamez84 23:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, User:Ddstretch beat me to it - I didn't realise sorry. Jhamez84 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your inappropriate use of the South Yorkshire local map on articles for places in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire

I have reverted these maps as the places you edited are not in South Yorkshire, and the caption to the local map is incorrect for them. Wikipedia must be factual and verifiable, and it is verifiable that the various places I have reverted are not in South Yorkshire. If you feel the general map is not clear enough, the correct way to proceed is to request a local map for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. If you disagree with this, pleae take it to discussion on the talk page for the relevant infobox. In the meantime, your edits are introducing incorrect information that you must know is incorrect into wikipedia, and could be construed, if you continue without discussion, as disruption.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that assuming good faith is still commonplace on wikipedia! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I used the form of words "could be construed" which clearly indicates that if your continued without discussion, absense of good faith might be assumed. It does not mean that I was assuming it at that point. However, given that you continued to revert the changes until an admind started to intervene, I think it was becoming justified that your actions were becoming suspect. Althopugh I am not saying i9t now, you need to be careful, unless people begin to think of your of deliberately "playing the rules" to take them right to the limit in order to then make sniping comments about other people's behaviour.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet again, you are assuming bad faith. "However, given that you continued to revert the changes until an admind (sic) started to intervene, I think it was becoming justified that your actions were becoming suspect". No, I did not stop when an admin intervened - or at least not because, I stopped when I saw these messages on my talk page. These edits [1][2]to Killamarsh and Eckington, Derbyshire were made before I'd read these messages, as I had made them, then the server went down for maintenance, and when I'd saved the edits, realised I'd had new messages from your good self and Jhamez84 (talk · contribs).

As for "sniping comment", what the hell do you call that message you just left me? You seem to be accusing me of disruptive behaviour solely for the purpose of insulting other editors! Surely a rather thinly-veiled attack on myself (does WP:NPA mean nothing?)

And also, do you think it would have been cute to inform me of Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#Using inappropriate local maps? Surely if there is a problem, notification ought to have been placed on my talk page so that I may have an opportunity to defend myself? Some of these edits [3][4][5] smack of an inability to communicate with another human being, so instead running off to the bigger boys to get some help.

Incidentally, what was

"I feel that he is pushing it to a 3RR situation and not discussing the matter, and so, given that he is not a new user, I suggest that these latest, or further changes should be flagged as disruptive." all about? and why is

"(Incidentally, he also changed the map for Chester to use a local map that is not yet ready, and I reverted that a day or so ago.)" relevant? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 10:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you have a legitimate complaint about my actions, please feel free to take it to the relevant adminsitrator's noticeboard or other legitimate forum.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I quote, below, some relevant text from WP:AGF:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

 DDStretch  (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not that petty - I am man enough to sort out any disputes in private - without the need for third parties. As for your quote above, please show me this alleged "evidence to the contrary"! I made a clear statement in my edit summary that I felt the SY map showed better the relationships of these towns to the local area (admittedly "Shown within South Yorkshire" was misleading, but I felt I was going for the lesser of two evils) and as soon as I got the messages that it was contentious, I desisted. I have yet to receive an apology from you for your rampant false conclusions, wild accusations and attempted character assassination, nor even have I had an acknowledgement that you even believe this may have been a misunderstanding! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume from you failure to respond to the above for 4 days, that you apologise unreservedly, and agree that I am indeed 100% correct. You admit full responsibility for taking a good faith as bad faith, and you promise not to do so again. I, in turn, graciously accept your admission of guilt on the counts of rampant false conclusions, wild accusations and attempted character assassination. Thank you, and let this be the end of it. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Urban areas

I have reverted your moves of Tyneside, Teesside and Greater Belfast and somebody else has reverted your move of Greater Glasgow. I can find no evidence that these are official names for the areas. They appear to be in the format commonly used by ONS, but ONS do not appear to use those names for those particular areas. Wikipedia has to report things how they are, not make up terms. Joe D (t) 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was just rather annoyed by the formulaic approach you took to the situation which didn't seem to take into account the fact that the pages were not all primarily about ONS areas, or that they weren't even named by ONS in that format. I have reverted your move to Dearne Valley again because it ignored the fact that only a tiny amount of the article was about the ONS area, and the ELs showed it to be called "Dearne Valley" by everyone else. Renaming it gives undue weight to the ONS area: when every person who lives there called it "Dearne Valley" and every organisation named after it omits the "urban area" from their name (including "official" places like "Dearne Valley College" and "Dearne Valley Leisure Centre"), that fact is more notable than the name and boundary given by a minor government agency for occasional statistic analysis. Joe D (t) 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dore sta + satelite

According to satelite, it is on a branch seperate to the MML tracks. See here. Simply south 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed this in the discussion. Simply south 13:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you for your response. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pettiness indeed

Your Lewisskinner/trollbox page is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad-faith_user_page. As an act of good faith, I suggest you request its deletion. I don't see that any good can come from it. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm simply documenting disputes for my own info, so can have a record. If the same people keep coming up, then maybe there is a poblem, and I should be more careful in future. It can be de-linked or renamed if necessary. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop recreating the redirect from User:Lewisskinner/trollbox to your archived disputes page. You changed the name of this page in good faith, but keeping a redirect from the previous name is not helpful in any way.--Isotope23 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I created it once (not recreated) and once only to assist in the ANI. There are now redlinks in this section and on the ANI, so people cannot see the offending page and any amendments made. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the offending name is deleted and the content moved to archive of disputes pretty much closes the WP:ANI thread... The fact that it is redlinked pretty much demonstrates that you have voluntarily complied here.--Isotope23 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that fine. Thanks for the heads up anyway. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tables

Kindly stop removing tables of locations from articles - you have no remit to do so. Andy Mabbett 12:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Pigsonthewing, for raising this on my talk page. Now, may I ask why I have no remit to do so?

1. You do not own these articles, and therefore have no right to tell me what edits I can or cannot make.
2. There is no concensus to keep these tables in.
3. The test of whether people wanted to see vast tables of coordinated was Tinsley Viaduct. May I remind you of the outcome there? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I said that you have no remit to do so, because you are claiming to have one, on bogus grounds. Your edits appear to breach WP:POINT Andy Mabbett 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am simply in disagreement with the table, and suggested reasons why, including citing the Tinsley Viaduct talk page as a precident. Please do not throw wiki pages at me. I am not trying to make a point, simply removing content which I do not like and I do not believe helps the article, and for which there is no concensus to keep. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Please do not throw wiki pages at me" - What's this, in your preceding post, then: "own" ?

"I do not like [it]" is not grounds for removal of content. Policies not cited, per your request.

Andy Mabbett 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talkng, as you very well know Pigsonthewing, about indescriminately throwing irrelevant pages at me. WP:OWN seemed a relevant page - there are very real issues of ownership here. Please see as an example, your initial comment "Kindly stop removing tables of locations from articles - you have no remit to do so". Well, where is your remit to maintain them in the absence of a concensus to do so? As you so rightly say "I do not like [content]" is not a reason to remove, but if you were to carry on quoting that sentence "I do not believe [it] helps the article" is a reason. And AGAIN, see also "there is no concensus to keep" - you have still not addressed this concern. A debate is required to acheive concensus. You know what a deabte is right Pigsonthewing? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis: The discussion at Talk:Tinsley Viaduct was specifically about the Tinsley viaduct. None of the contributors ever suggested that it was the making of a wikipedia-wide policy, and the majority opinion there was that the six sets of co-ordinates were not necessary for that particular article. That particular conclusion does not apply to other articles, so you should at least try to justify your edits when making changes to those other articles. --VinceBowdren 12:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did try to justify my edits, in the edit summary. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, yes you did. But when I reverted your edit, giving a short justification in the edit summary and an expansion in the article's talk page (Talk:Norwood Tunnel), you removed the table again without further reply. --VinceBowdren 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise - I missed that. Thank you for your explanation. What about a quarter of the Manchester Ship Canal article being given over to coordinates? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Manchester Ship Canal article; my current opinion is that each article needs to be treated on its own merits, but I also think that I don't yet understand the use of geoformats enough to be sure when a table of co-ordinates is so large that its usefulness is exceeded by its awkwardness. --VinceBowdren 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are articles with over 250 Geo and hCard microformats, causing no problems. MSC had 18, before the recent, and third, revert. Andy Mabbett 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Third revert? I do not believe so. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1 (13:00, 17 April 2007), 2 (13:18, 17 April 2007), 3 (14:52, 17 April 2007). Are there any other of your erroneous beliefs you'd like help with? Andy Mabbett 15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Be civil Pigsonthewing.

You are wrong. 1 (13:00, 17 April 2007) would appear to be the first edit, removing a table and fixing the zoom. See the edit summary - "rm. table per consensus reached at talk:Tinsley Viaduct, particularly the poll. Also fixed zoom on coords". 2 and 3 were the first and second reverts. should I expect a 3RR referal from you to go with my ANI? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Marge Simpson

• Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. JuJube 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh leave it out! Why not try assuming better faith? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not practise what you preach? I quote from that edit: "Please do not mark such massive changes [...]] as minor. This is a gross violation of the trust which ought to opperate (sic) within the wikipedia community." Andy Mabbett 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This was a private (and indeed, resolved[6][7]) discussion. Please, keep your nose out of where it's not wanted, and do not resort to personal attacks to make a point. Thank you kindly. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no private discussion on Wikipedia. "Oh leave it out!" does not indicate that the issue was resolved. There was no personal attack. Andy Mabbett 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are now arguing with me over whether a discussion I had with another user ended in resolution? The user in question agreed with me, and apologised. Twice in fact, so if I say the issue was resolved, then please, leave it at that. How would you feel if I added comments to discussions in your talk page? Well, I shall tell you how I felt, attacked. You are being uncivil - (quoting) "incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". I appreciate your defence of one with the same intensions as yourself, but when the issue had already been resolved, your comments did just that. I am asking you politely to desist. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did JuJube apologise and agree with you? (rest of rant ignored) Andy Mabbett 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again Pigsonthewing, you have chosen to read what suits you. The issue I was talking about is this one, which you yourself raised. It took place on Martin Cordon's talk page. Engage brain before opening mouth. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the issue under which I placed my comment. Abuse noted. Andy Mabbett 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You always have to have the last word, don't you? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood

I've reverted your revert to the Torchwood article. There is nothing wrong with the edits made. Matthew 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it out mate. Why not check my contributions? Surely you can see what I am on vandal patrol? Consider assuming better faith in future. Funny how one never gets praise for good work, but the first mistake one makes gets pounced upon... L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You reverted for no reason, Lewisskinner.. I do not see anything here that would show that Matthew was not assuming good faith.. Vandal patrol has nothing to do with this discussion Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was on RC, and I clicked in error. Just a simple revert would have been fine, no need to clutter my talk page! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you could've said that.. And, if you don't want people to clutter your talk page, you may as well not have one.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Why not check my contributions" - Because I didn't look at them, because I'm not interested in them, respectfully.. Matthew 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

30 rock episode

You reverted an edit by me that I properly commented upon in it's edit summary. I know vandal patrol can be hard at times, but please at least read people's edit summaries before you hit revert. And if you still feel a revert is needed, you should provide a proper edit summary. Please put more effort into seperating "blatent vandalism" reverts and "good faith edits" reverts. The fact that you get this many people within 24 hour complaining about your vandal patrolling should be an indication that you are doing something wrong. Regardless of the intentions. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)