User talk:Postlebury
|
Hi there. I noticed that on the article Real estate investment trust you removed the "missing citations" template, but didn't note what specific citations were needed. Generally, it's helpful to allow the editor who placed the tag there in the first place to go see if his/her concerns were addressed by subesquent edits. Deleting the tag alone does not help identify which problems may yet need help. I've restored the tag, and I hope that you would review the edit history to see who placed the tag there in the first place, an ask them if there are any remaining concerns. If there are, that editor should use the {{fact}} tag within the article, and remove the top-of-page template him-/herself. This way cooperative editing can take place, and no misunderstandings will occur because of lack of communication. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion the person who added the (almost useless) tag should have made more effort or none at all, and responsibility for his or her failure to do so should not be transferred to anyone else. Postlebury 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help with this article and Hunting license. I'm still working on both. Bearian 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Castles in France
[edit]To User:Angusmclellan, User:Cool Cat, User:Jamie Mercer, User:Bluap, User:Postlebury, User:LukeHoC, User:Johnbod, User:Sam Blacketer
I'm writing to you because you contributed to the discussion on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, or redirected articles in that category. This decision, as I hope to show, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Please take the time to read the following and respond.
Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)
My reasons for questioning the decision are:
1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.
2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.
It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.
3. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.
4. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.
5. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).
6. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!
7. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.
I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. Emeraude 10:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Date style
[edit]Hi - I note that you have been editing several articles to change the date style. It seems to me that you are putting in a lot of work for no benefit, either to yourself or the WP generally. To get dates to show correctly in your preferred format, you should click on the "my preferences" tab at the top of the page, and then the "Date and time" tab and choose how you want dates to show. Providing the dates are properly linked in future all dates should show as you want. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo 12:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is entirely wrong. I am assisting the fundamental policy that British English has equality in Wikipedia. This is to help the tens of millions of British users who are not registered to see Wikipedia in their own language. Wikipedia is not a private little club for the tiny number of users who are both registered and aware of that option, it is for everybody. Please think more carefully in future before you demean another user's efforts to improve Wikipedia for the benefit of all. I will be doing hundreds more later. Postlebury 12:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Postlebury, I do this too and I've also received negative feedback. I really don't understand why some people think this is a waste of time. If you change "color" to "colour" no-one raises an eyebrow - you might even be applauded - but surely that's no less trivial. Know then that at least one user appreciates your efforts and looks forward to the hundreds to come. Cheers The Stickler 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Category changes
[edit]You made a changed to Category:Sports rules and regulations. What was the purpose of the change?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since you've chosen to ignore me, I will reverse your edits. Thanks you.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since your reversion is without merit, I have reverted it. I thought it was bleeding obvious why it needed changing. It is standard to sort categories alphabetically key word. Category:Sports would be a mess if half of the categories where under SPO. Postlebury 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, if you can't be civil, then maybe you should find another place to busy yourself. It appears you have initiate a reversion war. I don't know you, and you don't know me. I'm not going to waste time arguing with someone who has an uncivilized, authoritarian approach to editing Wikipedia. You call explaining your revision patronizing. Maybe you'd like to try that on the management of this site, and have them validate your assessment? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was a straightforward, simple edit, and no-one else has disagreed with it. It is just silly to call the correction of an obvious error "authoritarian". Try to accept Wikipedia's conventions with a better grace. Postlebury (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You helped choose Dwarf planet as this week's WP:ACID winner
[edit]
Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you voted for Edinburgh Zoo to be the next ACID article. Thanks for your vote, and I was wondering if you could take a while to look over the Zoo's article, to see if you can add/correct information, or generally improve on the article? Any help you can offer would be great, as I'm currently pushing for Good Article status! Thanks again :) — Jack · talk · 03:14, Thursday, 3 January 2008
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You helped choose Open Source as this week's WP:ACID winner
[edit]Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Voting
[edit]Hi. You've participated in the debate about deleting of category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 [1]. Now, there's a similar voting on deletion on the article (created, although the results of discussion was delete, not listify). The links to the voting is here merger suggestion?. Since you've participated previously in the discussion, you're invited to participate again. Please, give your opinion. Kubura (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
My question
[edit]See Talk:Tanning bed.
CfD nomination of Category:American football images
[edit]I have nominated Category:American football images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. B (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Australian Grand Prix
[edit]the withdrawal of Australia's most popular domestic racing series, V8 Supercar, from the support program, although the size of the attendance drop from 2006 to 2007 does not support the assertion. - Removed because it was POV? The drop in spectator numbers, as detailed immediately below was just 500 people (out of approx 300,000). It wasn't POV, 500 simply makes the assertion that the lack of V8 Supercars affected the crowd frankly silly. What exactly is your objection? --Falcadore (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- No it doesn't because one can't tell what other factors moved the attendance up or down. There may have been five factors that increased the attendance by an aggregate 100,000 counterbalanced by another five factors that reduced it by 100,500. Out of the negative aggregate of 100,500 (or 612 or 43,321 or whatever) the amount attributable to the removal of the V8 Supercar race may have been 100,500 or it may have been zero, or anything inbetween. There is simply no way to tell, but the phrase I removed implies that all or nearly all of it was. That is editorialising on the basis of circumstantial evidence, or to put it another way, it is POV. Postlebury (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
'Minor' flag
[edit]Hiya. Mind if I ask you about this edit? You marked it with the wp:minor flag. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to instead have supplied a short edit summary? Just helps vandal-patrollers etc.. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I dare say it would. On the other hand, it is more trouble to make edits if one has to fill in that box, making it less likely that I will bother to make useful edits if I commit to that extra burden. And if people complain about me not providing edit summaries, I am very much less likely to make useful edits. I am now going to sign out of wikipedia, and will not be making any more useful edits for a while, whereas if you hadn't interrupted me I would probably have made several more useful edits tonight. You might want to take this into account when deciding whether or not to make similar complaints to other useful editors. Postlebury (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's your choice, but I didn't say I was complaining, nor that your edit was not useful, nor did I intend to dissuade you from further editing. Only trying to improve quality of WP / edits. Maybe I interrupted you at a bad time. Trafford09 (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Education in the United States by city or town has been nominated for renaming
[edit]
Category:Education in the United States by city or town has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)