User talk:Siggasonswein

Siggasonswein, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Siggasonswein! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Siggasonswein. You have new messages at Loriendrew's talk page.
Message added 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acabashi, Thank you for your correspondence

If I understand you correctly, I can use information cited in published secondary sources and medieval manuscripts to make the same point, much as I did when I wrote my thesis, without the need to cite my own work. I must admit that it seems odd not citing work which I know directly pertains to the matter at hand, but I suppose that it might work. Would I be able to do this under two different titles, one enhancing the rubbish which is currently listed on the Wikipedia page of Wentbridge pertaining to Robin Hood, and another detailing the local history of the region and how that pertains to Robin Hood? Though strictly speaking, this information equally belongs to the pages of Pontefract, Barnsdale, Campsall and Kirk Smeaton, and at a stretch to Castleford too, because these localities are so intertwined in both their topography and history that it is not feasible to disassociate them from one another.

Scott

Acabashi's advice is good. Since you should have the sources to hand, you should cite them, taking great care to keep it short and to the point. You should focus on the specific matter relevant to each locale and avoid general discussion of Robin Hood: since this is the Internet, hyperlinks take care of the scene-setting and context. You must also avoid speculation, use a formal encyclopedic tone, and avoid drawing conclusions in Wikipedia's voice where the material is equivocal or disputable. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, please bare with me

Hi All, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying my best to give information upon the village of Wentbridge. Yes, I have made mistakes, but both Acroterion and Acabashi have kindly shown me the error of my ways. I am trying to work to re-write the article so that it complies with the requirements of Wikipedia, but in order to do so I need patience, time and, most importantly of all, guidance. If you can provide such then please do so.

Thank you,

Scott

We understand that, and it's a good example of the learning curve associated with Wikipedia. You should review the manual of style (something every publication has) for general guidance on language, organization and style. Remember that Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source (for fairly obvious reasons, we don't want it to turn into a snake eating its tail, and it's all user-generated content that should be sourced to published material). You should seek the consensus of other editors for your edits, using the articles' talk pages. Please read the reliable sourcing and verifiability policies. Remember that this is not a paper encyclopedia, so you don't need to repeat material already present elsewhere in the encyclopedia: links are all that are needed, since someone who's interested in Wentbridge can go to Robin Hood to find more detailed material on him, or without plowing through an exposition on Robin Hood if they're not. We serve the reader here, and not everyone who reads the encyclopedia may have the same needs or interests that we do. For guidance on proportionate inclusion, please see this discussion of due proportion. Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You bb23 for your advice, I have edited the page and removed the link to Wikipedia's Robin Hood page.

Hi All,

Thanks for your advice, I am taking it on board as best as I can. As things stand, I have completed the final edit of the Wentbridge Wikipedia page. You will note that whilst I have used my local expertise to enhance the page, I have cited both primary and published secondary sources in order to ensure that the information contained on the page is properly referenced using the MHRA style. It is important to note that I have NOT referenced my own original research in any way, or made any reference to my original research during the main body of the text, thus preventing me from breaking Wikipedia's 'No Original Research' policy, which was the original issue. A BIG Thank You to both Acroterion and Acabashi for kindly taking the time to explain my errors here, I know that I was slow on the uptake ! Please accept my deepest apologies.

In particular, I have expanded the information on the geography of Wentbridge and added relevant 'topographical' details. You will note that my references to Robin Hood in this section of the Wikipedia page are minimal, and I feel, relevant to Wentbridge. I have also expanded the history article on the Wikipedia page, but only minimally. Finally, I have provided two paragraphs detailing the local history of Anglo-Saxon Wentbridge and its connections to Robin Hood, providing references to original medieval manuscripts and published secondary source material. By using my local knowledge to enhance the information listed in the 'Geography and Topography' section, and adding slightly to the 'History' section, I have increased the overall length of the page. By doing so, the specific local history knowledge that I have written pertaining to Robin Hood no longer overwhelms the content of the page, which I know was a complaint of Acroterion. Hopefully, I have written the material in a neutral tone, avoiding essay-type discussion. Also BB23, please note that I have removed the link to Wikipedia'a Robin Hood page and replaced it with a citation to a published academic text.

I hope that these actions meet to your high standards,

Scott

I must say that your removal of the discussion above isn't a good sign. And although you finally removed the wiki ref, you've left all the other material intact, and as others have told you, it's all inappropriate. I'm tempted to block you. Instead, I'm going to give you one more chance to demonstrate real good faith as opposed to what I interpret as very civil lip service. Self-revert all of your latest changes to the article (all 12 edits) and proceed on the talk page only.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again??? Really??

First of all, BB23, I have deleted the information that was formerly listed above because this is my own Talkpage, and having read all of the commentary, and taken onboard all of the advice that I have been kindly given to the best of my ability, I am free to dispose of the letters as I wish. A simple clean=up operation on my account does not give you grounds to openly doubt my honesty and integrity. Secondly, yes, I do only intend to write Wikipedia articles that, in at least some capacity, relate to Robin Hood. This is because I write what I know about. And, having spent two years as a postgraduate student researching and writing about Robin Hood, I have a certain level of expertise that ought to be of some benefit to Wikipedia. I do not, you will note, spend my time editing pages on subjects of which I have no knowledge, as you evidently do. Moreover, Wikipedia was founded on the principle of being a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit, not just its all knowing administrators. And therefore, I might ask, on what authority you two egomaniacs (Yes, Acroterion, that includes you as well) wield God-like power? Wikipedia currently employs 1408 volunteer administrators, has 76, 000 active contributors and 21,821,300 global users. Yet, repeatedly, it is your own God-like voice that I hear in my ear. Given that my additions are neither profound or expletive, I would suggest that you at least wait for at least some of Wikipedia' millions of users to complain before you admonish me and edit my contribution.

We have no objection to your editing Robin Hood-related subjects. My concern is that your enthusiasm for the subject is in opposition to the mission of the encyclopedia: everything you've touched has become a dissertation on Robin Hood, at the expense of the actual subject. This happens from time to time, when someone who's really enthusiastic about a given topic sees everything through topic-tinted glasses. It wasn't helped that you started out with an extraordinary level of self promotion, and that you were very aggressive in defense of that promotional content. Please remember that all of the volunteers here are interested in improving the encyclopedia, and that it's possible that your good-faith efforts, however well intentioned, or your understanding of how to help out, are at odds with the overall mission. I've spent a great deal of time leading you through the general guidelines of how to edit Wikipedia, including concepts such as undue emphasis on a given subject and reliable sourcing. Editing Wikipedia requires an effort to work within the boundaries of the consensus of the community at large.

I believe you've underestimated the level of rigor associated with Wikipedia as it stands in 2014. You may be confusing the concept of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" with a lack of critical review. In the beginning it was easy to write about, say "blue." Nowadays the emphasis has shifted to a demand for quality in writing and sourcing. Having run up against a consensus that an article on a given locale should not turn into a dissertation on that locale's relationship to Robin Hood, and having been given very specific advice on how to work appropriately within the conventions of the encyclopedia (short, concise, and proportionate to the subject), you appear to be trying to personalize the discussion. Please use the article talkpages that are provided for the purpose to propose concise, sourced changes to the article that respect the subject, which do not turn articles on villages into essays on Robin Hood, and which are written in the style associated with encyclopedia articles.

I further note that having taken an active part in the content of the articles, I cannot take further administrative action, short of vandalism, advertising or copyright violations, and that my actions on the article content are those of any other experienced editor. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, we've all noticed this [1]. However, I've ignored that lapse (as has everybody else) and left some feedback at Talk:Wentbridge. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An official complaint about Wikipedia's God-like administrators

Jim Wales founded Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia, to which anyone could add well-founded information, in order to further human knowledge. Yet though the website was founded on this simple principle, Wikipedia has fallen short of this objective. Though I am new to Wikipedia, I have expert knowledge on the legend of Robin Hood, amassed through studying a two-year postgraduate Masters research degree at the University of Leeds. Yet my attempts to provide information on this theme to Wikipedia have consistently been reedited by administrators, whom, I can only conclude, have a God complex. it has been my regular experience to find small groups of editors sitting in control of articles, reverting all changes, and replying dismissively, even rudely, to "outside" proposals for change. When asked on what authority deletions or reversions are made, a small group of editors appear, identified not by a general review system that would provide broad, unbiased comment, but rather, seemingly, by private communication between editors. After this, the change is denied because of a lack of consensus. Group size for this consensus decision has at times has been as small as 2-3. Nevertheless, I have repeatedly tried to amend the issues that have been raised by administrators, but alas there has not been anything near to what one might call a just or professional adjudication of a disputed matter. Sadly, these negative situations have taken over in shaping my impression of Wikipedia, and lead me to say, I am at a loss. In consequence, Wikipedia’s leadership can say what it likes, externally. But in my experience, and despite its founding principles, Wikipedia is not truly the fundamentally egalitarian organisation it likes to depict itself as being. Instead, at its core resides a patchwork of editors with personal interests and agendas, many of whom band together as need be and to function in a control-conscious manner. Just as important, at that level and steadily progressing higher in the organization, there seem to be few paths for constructive oversight/review or for real systematic change. To coin a phrase, it is simply the case that all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others, and the farm is doing just fine as it is, thank you. So while those in charge seem to have a view of the organization largely constructed by its more equal participants, I regret to say that this is simply not true.

Hi Siggasonswein: Since you made an official complaint and since I am both an admin and a PhD, I thought I'd stick my oar in. Has anyone referred you to any of the essays on the subject of expert editors? Wikipedia:Expert editors fits its title pretty well and IMO does a good job of summarising the situation and best practices. Also I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists is useful, even though it's aimed at academics in the sciences, not the humanities.

Since the inception of the project, it has both grown and matured. There is now a body of work that it is important to preserve (which is in fact the main rationale for some of us having advanced permissions) and we have a much higher profile online. The online world has also changed greatly in that time. Most saliently, the project now requires references to a far greater extent than was originally envisaged (and far beyond the requirements of academic publications). To a very great extent, one's success on Wikipedia today depends on one's ability to provide references to support edits. Academic expertise should almost always mean one can provide those references (and note that they do not have to be online), and that is the key to fitting in here. Don't cite your own research - cite the sources you used in putting it together. And remember that the audience here is primarily the general reader and only incidentally the subject expert, and that even more than print encyclopaedias, Wikipedia provides related articles to which the reader can refer (and can be led via wikilinks) and therefore has no need to embed everything related into one particular article. These differences make writing here very different from academic writing, and it's hard for many academics to make the adjustment. But it is different, and regardless of your type of expertise (Wikipedia also has many experts in non-academic fields, and experts in editing and template coding and so forth - its strength lies in bringing us all together), that needs to be borne in mind, or it will be frustrating, as you have found out.

I hope these links and points help a bit. If not, you're welcome to come over to my talk page and discuss specifics. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning. Siggasonswein, stop plastering the above rant all over Wikipedia. It's disruptive, and if you continue, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have achieved my objective and attained the attentions of a neutral admin and Phd and therefore have no need to continue to post this article. Hopefully, by working with Yngvadottir I can achieve something workable for the relevant Robin Hood articles without feeling that my head is on a chopping block whenever I edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talk • contribs)

Good to hear but, if so, why are not responding to Yngvadottir here or, as he offered, on his talk page, rather than repeating your screed everywhere? I suggest you do precisely what you just said (working with him) and hopefully things will settle down.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BB23, you are now really starting to come across as though you are keen to start a fight! Are you so brazen in person? It's very rude. You ought to meditate a little. Please note, that I actually have a life, and therefore might not respond with immediate effect. Yet as it happens, I was in the act of replying to Yngvadottir on his personal talk page when I was interrupted by your rant. And, though I am generally a civil person, your constant temper tantrums and threats to have me blocked are starting to wear thin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talk • contribs)

Scott, it has been pointed out to me that your posting of the same material all over Wikipedia was done before Yngvadottir left you the message offering to help. Although I still think those posts were disruptive, I apologize for my error as to the timing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, please notice that everybody signs their messages in talk pages in a standard way. It is easy to do by typing 4 tildas: ~~~~. They will be automatically converted into a standard signature, similar to mine. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robin Hood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[File:Robin Hood Major Oak.jpg|thumb|left|The [[Major Oak]] in [[Sherwood Forest]]]
:''24) No. 389, f0- 78. Ascension Day, 29 H. III., Nic Meverill, with John Kantia, on the one part, and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bracketbot,

Thank you. But I'm afraid that I'm not tech savvy and therefore I don't really understand what that means, could I ask you to alter it on my behalf. Also, I have tried to move [[File:Robin Hood Major Oak.jpg|thumb|left|The Major Oak in Sherwood Forest] from earlier on the page, but I do not known how to get the picture to appear on the screen, can you sought that for me also, thanks, Scott.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wentbridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

}}
Saylis.. - The_site_of_the_Saylis_at_Wentbridge.jpg| Looking down on Wentbridge from the Saylis]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robin Hood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

English Heritage.org.uk (2012) http://list.englishheritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1151464>. Heritage Inspired, ‘Campsall Saint Mary Magdalene’ Heritage Inspired.org. uk (2013) <http://www.
:''24) No. 389, f0- 78. Ascension Day, 29 H. III., Nic Meverill, with John Kantia, on the one part, and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robin Hood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Hang on a minute and I'll try to fix it for you: you're mixing internal and external links and references, which doesn't work so well. Acroterion (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the internal link from within the reference. If you've got a reference that you're going to use extensively, you might want to mention it here and I can put it into the appropriate format: it's not especially easy for new users to do. Note that I'm at work and will probably have to wait for extensive help until the evening (U.S. eastern time, which will be a bit late for you). Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you like to see the image (which paragraph?) Acroterion (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the first paragraph, if you look at the published page you can actually see where I've copy pasted the [[File:Robin Hood Major Oak.jpg|thumb|left|The Major Oak in Sherwood Forest] do-dah thingy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talk • contribs)

@Siggasonswein: Once again, please notice that everybody signs their messages in talk pages in a standard way. It is easy to do by typing 4 tildas: ~~~~. They will be automatically converted into a standard signature, similar to mine. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that automatically timestamps your edit, which helps in following a discussion. I'm going to be occupied with work and home commitments for the next eight hours or so, I'll work on the image when I get a chance. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS and signing

Wikipedia has a manual of style which should be followed (e.g., no double line spaces between paragraphs). And please, can you remember to sign your posts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will endeavor to rememberSiggasonswein (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Blue Plaque Wentbridge commemorating the village's connection to Robin Hood.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Blue Plaque Wentbridge commemorating the village's connection to Robin Hood.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Siggasonswein (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)==Speedy deletion nomination of File:Blue Plaque commemorating Wentbridge's connections to Robin Hood.jpg==[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Blue Plaque commemorating Wentbridge's connections to Robin Hood.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Do you mean to say that it's a duplicate, because it is. Only, I'm not sure how to access the original file that I uploaded. Siggasonswein (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC) thumb|right[reply]

ThanksSiggasonswein (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robin Hood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue Plaque commemorating Wentbridge's Robin Hood connections.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blue Plaque commemorating Wentbridge's Robin Hood connections.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 13:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]