User talk:Robwingfield/Archive/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hi, Robwingfield, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.

---

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing.

Link

Please don't create article which only contain a category, but no text. Such articles are Wikipedia:speedy deletion candidates. You better make a "missing articles" section in the category page itself. andy 16:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to Tariq Aziz

Edit comment: "Catholicism is not Christianity". This is grotesque POV-pushing, which is extremely frowned upon. Please take the time to review the Tutorial and Policy Library. Your views aren't supported by the article on the Roman Catholic church, which begins "The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian body in the world" or the entry on Christianity, which agrees with this view. I cannot imagine you being able to defend changing either entry to refuse the general acceptance of this fact. You may contest this, but the articles clearly accept that this is contested, and further attempts to adjudicate this require acceptance of theological positions, the orthodoxy of which Wikipedia can recognise without any form of endorsement. Buffyg 17:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Carnac

Just to say thanks for your additions to the above – Carnac has long been on my to-do list (and, I fear, will long be there yet...)  Best wishes, David Kernow 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading F.C.#Current first team squad

Hi. I was altering the current squad so that the two columns would be more aligned to one another. Mark272 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. Seemingly, the brackets beside the players "on loan" or "loaned from" aren't helping keep alignment. Mark272 00:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 7 May - 13 May

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Reading F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Michael Ballack article

It's not incorrect information. He's a Bayern player till June 30. Kingjeff 15:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look here, then you'll see that his conntract expires June 30. Therefore his contract with Chelsea dorsn't start untill Jult 1st. If you look here then you'll see he's still considered a Bayern player.

Discussion moved to Talk:Michael Ballack Robwingfield ^(talk) 16:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

BB7 contestant articles

Hello. I don't know if you realised, but last year it was decided that individual contestants shouldn't have their own articles. There were a couple of AfDs to act as precedants. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't realise... thanks. I won't bother with any of the other articles then! I assume they only get their own articles if they do anything noteworthy after BB, e.g. Jade Goody, Kate Lawler? Robwingfield ^(talk) 16:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right. I think last year the only person to have their own article was Derek Laud -- because of his extra political activities. Some contestants go on to become notable, like, as you mentioned, Jade Goody. A few from the first series too, but that's usually because they've gone on to present other shows. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve Sidwell

I see you just moved the above from Steve Sidwell (footballer), but unfortunately, you seem to have done it with a copy and paste rather than a move, so the history wasn't moved with it. I'm going to tag this for fixing, and am just letting you know, as the tag added is a speedy delete one, but don't worry! :) What will happen is that an admin will delete the current Steve Sidwell article, then move the Steve Sidwell (footballer) into its place (transferring the history in, and making Steve Sidwell (footballer) into a redirect with no history, and finally "undelete" the just deleted article, so that the content will be the same as it is now, but with the history intact and in one place. Regards, MartinRe 15:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay - thanks! Robwingfield ^(talk) 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And voila, I see it's just been done. If you look at the histories of both now, you'll see it's all nice and neat in one place! Whether Reading's Steve Sidwell should be at the main article is a different matter, my personal feeling is that unless one person is extremely notable, it's better to disambiguate as soon as possible, but I'll add more details on this to the article talk page. Regards, MartinRe 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Commercial site

I'd be interested as to what your definition of a "commercial site" is and why you feel the need to remove on topic sites for this reason (especially ones which contain more information about the given subject that the wiki article in the first place. ^(talk) 10:50am GMT.

Aaron Brown

Hi Rob - just letting you know that I've moved Aaron Brown (football) to Aaron Brown (footballer born 1983). There was also an article Aaron Brown (footballer) (a Swindon Town player), which is now at Aaron Brown (footballer born 1980). Aaron Brown (football) now redirects to Aaron Brown (footballer), which is now a disambiguation page. Confused? I was while I was trying to work all that out! :) Grutness...wha? 06:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Judging by the change history, you had a little bit of fun doing it...!  ;-) Robwingfield ^(talk) 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

An Muimhneach Machnamhach

Hi. I've just read your message about my user page. I take your point. I'm quite new to Wikipedia and only get to contribute to articles occasionally. I never thought of this as being solely an English language Wikipedia. Perhaps I should transfer my profile to the Irish language version or make it bilingual. The latter sounds like the better idea. I don't get a great deal of time these days to take part in Wikipedia. I will translate it as soon as I get a chance. I don't speak or write in English very often so the practice will do me good! Thanks! By the way, may user name means "The Contemplative Munsterman". An Muimhneach Machnamhach 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. Pete Bennett

Thanks for that - I didn't notice the first link. --Alex ^{talk here} 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Dewberry

However....however. No need to be nasty.....(Pally01 21:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

Pristina

Please stop changing the name to the Serbian spelling. The article uses the international spelling the city is known by and any attempt to change it would be seen as an act of deliberate provocation. There is a lot of heat surrounding Kosovo related articles because of the undergoing talks on its political future. Tonycdp 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Article changed as per consensus on the talk page, so your edit was against Wikipedia consensus. Reverted back, and notice to refrain from editing against consensus left on your talk page. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No consensus was reached. The article was in a stable condition until ou decided to enforce the non-existant consensus. Please stop, otherwise you will be breaking the 3 Revert Rule and at the same time provoke vandalism from the pro-Albanian camp.Tonycdp 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to vandalism such as yours, but in any case, if you take this further, I shall request assistance to block you from making further edits to avoid an edit war. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that you are not commiting vandalism. Your opinions on the talk page are well known, and lots of people disagreed with you. No consensus was reached. Please stop vandalizing the pageTonycdp 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Pristina, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Tonycdp 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Above warning template invalid. See Talk:Priština, and above thread. Tonycdp reported on WP:AIV. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Dear Editor, I would like to remind you of the 3RR rule, regaring the article Priština. Since this is a content dispute rather than vandalism, the 3RR rule applies to both sides who are involved in the revert-war. Please note that the article is already part of an Arbitration request on related issues Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kosovo. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The content dispute has been resolved by consensus - see Talk:Priština#Requested_move. Therefore, despite warnings, the other user is now committing vandalism, so 3RR does not apply. However, I have taken this to the admins to avoid an edit war, and I've ceased reverting pending independent review. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR Rule does not apply in this case as Robwingfield is vandalising the page. Regards Tonycdp 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

SIGH - okay, I'm going to duck out of this one, and let someone else carry the can. Consensus has been established, following the WP:RM (see the archive at alk:Priština#Requested_move, so I'm not vandalising the page. But I don't suppose you will, as you don't seem willing to look at the past movement on this subject. I'm unwilling to deal with others who copy everything I say, even though imitation is a form of flattery... Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The past movements you mention are very familiar to me, but if we're going to play it by the rules then we play it by the rules, right. Pristina is the correct English spelling and is used extensively by Neutral secondary sources. Now whether it is due to people not being able to type "š" is speculation and amounts to "Original Research". Thank you. Tonycdp 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rob, ceasing the revertions sounds like the most sensible thing to do, so that is a good decision, but changing an article against consensus is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia, it is considered a content dispute and should be dealt with accordingly. But in most of these cases, it is best to step back and ask for other opinions, like you just did. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about reversion vs vandalism. Maybe it's not vandalism - but surely it's something stronger than simple editing? Why should we have to go through the whole subject again, when a debate has only just been closed with a clear consensus? I'm out of here for a few hours, as I've indicated before. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can be considered more than simple editing, usually it is called POV pushing (forcing a certain version of an article), but this ofcourse highly depends on who you ask :). Also, I've had a look at the poll that was conducted and gave my opinion on the talk page of the (now protected) article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rob, don't let incidents like this get you down. The discussions and reversion on many Balkan related articles are often quite heated. I've gotten involved in similar issues regarding the Kosovo article, naively thinking I could mediate a solution. We are now up for arbitration and hopefully the arbitration committee will set a precedent regarding these topics, so they can be dealt with more swiftly in the future. Happy editing! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Amy Lee

Dear Rob, I don't want to seem horrible with you over this article, I just feel that if something has no reference then it shouldn't be included. --Fluffy Kitten 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Appleseed

A Template:Seealso NEVER goes at the top of the page. I've installed a disambiguation link there. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Thanks, I just poached your userboxes lol. Sorry about that, I saw your page, saw how lush they looked and took the relevant ones and changed the others. Isn't it great! Peterwill 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes conitnued lol.

Okay, well what I mean is I support Man U, but I like football and all, but its not important. Careless I can't really change or else I wouldn. its only because Man Utd. are better then a certain team.

Also, I am thinking Imogen Thomas should be reopened, as I posted in the Contestant Talk, theres loads of unbig brother related stuff to go in there. Peterwill 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Borislav Mikhailov

Hi! Actually, Boris and Borislav are independent names and have nothing to do with each other. Borislav Mikhailov is not Boris Mikhailov or anything. The diminutive of both names is Bobi (Boris is not a diminutive of Borislav). I tried to move it back, but apparently only an administrator can do it, unfortunately :( Todor→Bozhinov 10:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh... I now saw it was another user who moved the Borislav Mikhailov page. Disambiguation is OK, I wasn't aware of his nickname in England. An admin will move it soon, so I guess everyting would be OK :) Todor→Bozhinov 11:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

I disagree that I have failed to add an ample edit summary. Also I apologise if I have been perceived as rude due to removing me removing your warnings. Kurt000 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Then edited to the following at 11:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC) by Kurt000:

I disagree that I have failed to add an ample edit summary, I have looked on my contributions page and the majority of my edits have a edit summary. Also I apologise if I have been perceived as rude due to removing me removing your warnings. Kurt000 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

At the time of your original message, you had made a few edits without providing edit summaries, which is really irritating for other editors. The template I left on your talk page was a friendly reminder. Don't be so aggressive in reply. Robwingfield ^(talk) 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Reading Fans

As an administrator, I'm sure you're aware you should be proposing articles for deletion, if there are grounds to do so. The above article had a speedy delete template applied, with no criterion for deletion stated. If speedy deletion is not applicable, deletion should be proposed on WP:AfD. I've reverted the page to the last genuine version. Robwingfield ^(talk) 22:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, I did not delete the page. If a page should be deleted, I use the relevant process (assuming it is not a speedy). I, or any other editor, can change a page to a redirect if this is indicated. The page Reading Fans probably qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD:A7 (unremarkable people/groups); instead of deleting I chose to redirect it to a reasonable target. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

From User_talk:Panarjedde

Your edits to Marcus Hahnemann

Okay, examples:

• For the piping of club names, check any other football bio page, e.g. Theo Walcott, Brian McBride, Wayne Rooney, Alan Shearer.
• For the formatting of dates in the infobox, check the guidelines at Template talk:Infobox Football biography. You should be using five tildes (i.e. "~~~~~") to produce the timestamp.
• For your other edit, how does "English FA Premier League" even make sense? Either call it the English Premier League, or call it the FA Premier League, but to call it both in the same sentence is nonsensical!

Please do some research in future before trying to change the style on an article. Robwingfield ^(talk) 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For the piping, the convention is meaningless, as the name of the club includes the initials. The fact that some other articles use your conventions does not mean anything, other articles use mine. So it is a matter of meaning, and I still think mine has more sense.

For adding the hour and minute of the update of scores, I think it is useless, but if your template talk says so...

I do not agree with you. "English FA Premier League" makes sense, as the league is the "FA Premier League", and, guess, it is English.

As regards your suggestion, I suggest you to be less arrogant in your messages to other editors, particulary when you are wrong.--Panarjedde 11:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of articles hide "F.C." from being displayed. It decreases the readability of the article. In this case, the name of the club is Reading, and the type of club it is is "football club". It adds nothing to the article to keep stating that each club you're talking about is a football club.

It's not my template talk. It's the template talk. I didn't create that convention!

It's The Football Association, not The English Football Association. Therefore, the league is either the Premier League (and qualify it by stating that it's the English Premier League, as is frequently done in the US), or just leave it as the FA Premier League. It's superfluous to add both qualifications.

I'm not being arrogant, just disappointed that you're being argumentative over something you obviously haven't researched before forming a view on. My original edit summary of And I'm not wrong. I suggest you take this to WP:RFC rather than constantly re-editing the article. Robwingfield ^(talk) 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The name of the team is Reading FC. At leas the first time it is presented and linked it should be complete of its "FC"; after, you can use the short version, if you prefer. This is because a user should not be puzzled by the difference between "player X grew in Liverpool" and "player X grew in Liverpool". Furthermore, the very Template talk:Infobox Football biography you cited uses "[[Example FC]]"", not "[[Example FC|Example]]".

It is still stupid. However I said I do not mind, as far as consensus has been reached.

Maybe I was not clear. The name of the league is FA Premier League (check the link), and it is from England. So "English FA Premier League" is perfectly sound.

My edits are based on Manual of Style, which clearly you did not research. The arrogance I was talking about clearly comes from this assumption of yours, as you are assuming that I did not research while you did: the former might be true, the latter is wrong for sure.

--Panarjedde 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk blanking

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Robwingfield ^(talk) 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any warning. So I can remove them. Furthermore, there is no rule against deleting them, it is simply suggested to have an archive, a thing I do not mind.--Panarjedde 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Graham Stack.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Graham Stack.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 19:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This applies to all of the other Reading F.C. squad images you uploaded as well. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ulises de la Cruz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ulises de la Cruz.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Danielle-lloyd-41.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Danielle-lloyd-41.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jonathanstephen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonathanstephen.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)