Sliggy
Hi Sliggy, You had a question about Vessel of Sadness. The quote comes from the blurb on the 2004 edition (Abacus paperback). For other quotes go to williamwoodruff.com. Best wishes Woodruff 22:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________
shortage economy <- this one is good, needs fleshing out
- Are you actually intending to do this for all railways and all stations? (or ask a WikiProject to...)
- Isn't there some way of automating it?
- Hi there. I've added Waterloo via Weybridge railway service to the existing VfD for the sake of consistency and expediency. No bad-faith or anything: but there is no point in only testing one of the articles. If you feel they should be separate please do feel free to split them up. -Splash 02:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't object to removing some of the hyperbole that is part of many DANFS histories, but you seem to have gone overboard in reducing the amount of pertinent information. Request that you reconsider some of the changes that you've made (i.e., removing the information about where she was laid down and who her first commanding officer was wasn't necessary clips). Jinian 19:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- I understand some of your reasoning here, but can't help feeling that you're removing some of the more interesting stories from the history. "Just the facts" might be good sometimes, but education (which may be what an enclyclopedia is about) is more than just facts. Your cuts seem fairly wholesale and will be difficult to reconsistute without a full revision. (By the by, the name of the CO was simply an example, but is normally included because of what he might have gone on to do, rather than what the ship did.) Jinian 12:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Nicely done. Thanks for being open to another POV and doing such a good done removing the DANFS bias. Jinian 16:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- The rest of the class - Thanks for doing the NPOV work on the rest of the class. DANFS, while accurate, was definitely a US publication and often showed that bias. I'll try to follow your example as I continue to move ships' histories over. While I often removed some of the text, you caught others that I missed. Thanks. Jinian 13:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Because of the complexity of the vote at the above AfD, I have attempted to break down the individual votes on the AfD talk page. If I have misunderstood your vote with respect to any of these, please correct it. Cheers! -- BDAbramson talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Sliggy,
Noticed that you are the editor of my posted article on Caroline Carver. Im afraid Id overlooked (being new to Wikepedia)the necessity to include only neutral content, so sorry and thanks for your ammendments.
I do think though, that there where some very neutral, pertinent facts which could have happily remained, and would assume that knowledge is in the spirit of Wikepedia?
For example: That she has Anglo/New Zealand parentage. Carolines participation in a rally from London to Saigon. That she lives just outside Bath.
I must say I do resent being threatened with tarring as a "vandal" if I was further to ammend the article. Doesnt seem to be in the pioneering spirit of free information on the internet and i found this quite intimidating, especially as I'd only made a faux par.
Regards Amanda
Hi Amanda
Sorry for only posting back on my own talk page -- I can see you've edited from different IP addresses (172.212.111.233 and 172.188.38.108 from the records), so I don't know where to leave a message for you. I hope you don't mind my responding in the only place I can hope you'll notice; if you create a username/log-on I would respond there. I'll drop a note onto the Talk:Caroline Carver too in the hope you'll see it there.
Let me start with an apology: the irritated tone was not appropriate in my last edit on Caroline Carver, I misunderstood your intention, and can only apologise and hope that this might be accepted. I am happy that your edits are not in any way even slightly approaching "incipient vandalism" and I retract that remark entirely. In short: whoops. Sorry.
I am grateful that you spent the time and effort creating the article on Caroline Carver, I think Wikipedia is improved by its inclusion. However, I do think some elements of your second edit, notably the quoted praise towards the end, fail to match published Wikipedia policy which we all must abide by (specifically aiming for a neutral point of view). Praise is necessarily a point of view (as is negative criticism, of course).
That said, I am just a random user and am, like everyone, an editor of any page and my opinion is just one amongst many. If you feel strongly that the content that you had previously included was superior to the newer content then please do edit/delete/take-outside-and-burn-by-moonlight my attempts at improvement if that is what you think is best. I will, of course, edit your amendment(s) and so over time the article should evolve into a fully polished information trove!
On the specifics you mention. Her parentage might well be a useful addition to the article, particularly if this has had an impact on her writing (the reason for her notability after all). I am unclear as to the relevance of her participation in the London/Saigon rally. If you want to include her current residence go ahead and include it; in this case I would question its relevance.
Put simply, have a look at some guideline documents so you can get a handle of how things generally go. Maybe have a quick look at a couple of other articles on authors. (Randomly picking I wonder how Dava Sobel or John Wyndham are treated?). Generally speaking, articles tend to evolve into neutral, factual accounts of various notable ideas/people/events etc..
Anyway, sorry again if I sounded overly peevish and please ignore my tone, it was misplaced. It is a published guideline to be bold and I look forward to reading, editing, and being edited by, your future contributions!
Best wishes
Sliggy 12:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
(PS. if you want to sign off with your username (or IP address if you don't have a username), & date & time, the quickest way is to type ~~~~)
Strike-off in error
Pardon my misunderstanding of guidelines. I have reverted the strike-offs. Prashanthns 18:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
From ImpuMozhi
Hi - - I am trying to archive the records of edits I made before becoming a registered user. The procedure I am employing is as per advice available from this page: Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.
You could help me by telling me in detail how I can better achieve this objective. If the edits I made under various IP addresses could be credited to user ImpuMozhi's records, that would be ideal. Please advice and refrain from deleting anything meanwhile.
I am removing the delete message you put up, so that some other administrator does not become proactive in deleting that page. Please reply. Regards, ImpuMozhi
Just wanted to say thanks and well done for all your contributions to this article. I think it's not a bad little piece now, and hopefully it will continue to expand. Angmering 20:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I saw the note you left in Angmering's page. I think it is worth noting. A lot of the Argentine teams have some english in their names (Argentinos Juniors, Boca Juniors, River Plate, Racing Club, Quilmes Athletic Club, Newell's Old Boys, etc) and the even the first organized Argentine team was made of English expats (I think it was Alumni), see Football_in_Argentina. Even more, the first time Argentina beast England (At Wembley, I think) is still remebered and celebrated back home. Maybe we should even mention some instances of the Intercontinental Cup, one with Estudiantes de la Plata playing very rough (I think against Nottingham Forest) and another where Liverpool FC refused to play Boca Juniors (scheduling conflicts, was the official word).
Unfortunately we also imported the hooligan tradition, too. :(
Please let me know on my talk page why this article should be deleted. What would make it notable? Lewispb 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)