User talk:Cillmore

Cillmore (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Negativity

Go Away

This User Believes there is no academic or intellectual value to articles about fictional universes

Medication is Available

This User Believes that Users who think they are Klingons or Avatars, or are members in some way of some fictional universe should not be taken seriously when they contribute to serious articles

Shame

This User Believes that Users who characterize other peoples nationality, ethnicity, or religion as evil, or otherwise offer insults, based on the either the actions of a very few, or a government, are damaging humanity and invalidate their own positions

Wasted Life

This User Believes that Users who spend their time editing or creating articles about computer games, fictional universes, non existent creatures or spaceships, or other imaginary friends, are wasting their lives

WEAK

Offering examples of wrongdoing to characterize a whole Nation, People, Ethnicity, or Religion makes you WEAK and exposes your POOR character.

My boxes are under construction

Age of Empires.

I helped in its writing; I also helped write several other video game articles, and multiple history articles. I don't see why the editing of any article should be discouraged. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was uncivil. As I put on your talk page I am frustrated with the effort that capable people like you put into writing (very well) articles of no intrinsic academic, social, geopolitical (and many others) value.Cillmore (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Richmond

I began with this article and followed it through 300 years of history on the British Peerage and found most (if not all) of the articles linked by a common case of either wooden language, weasel words, and or a theme of non sequitur. Rather than attach these labels to these articles, I am going to be editing them as time permits. Should any of the editors on these articles be available, I would appreciate some assistance.Cillmore (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My interest in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Dukes of Richmond centres on their cricket activity. If you need any help with those aspects, please let me know. Regards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you are actually killing peacocks rather than weasels, but keep up the good work. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is difficult to kill peasants. I mean Pheasants.Cillmore (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Richard Newland

You need to be clear about what weasel words are. They are phrases such as "it is said that". There were no such phrases in the Newland article and I have removed your tag which was inappropriate.

The article did slightly overuse the word "famous" so I've amended that. Having said that, I would point out that there is a reference in the article to a most reputable source (that I have just verified) which confirms that this person was the most famous cricketer in England, so it is legit to describe him as famous.

Could you please make sure that you are tagging articles for the correct reason if you going to pursue your present policy. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has weasel words.

The weasel word "famous" appears 5 times in the article out of a total of 232 words making the article 2.16% "famous". There are five paragraphs in the article, with a total of 17 lines, and thus "famous" statistically appears in every paragraph, and every third line. (3.4 lines)

Following the link in the Newland article to the 2nd Duke of Lennox the following is found and needs to be corrected.

“it −appears that− his father had been a master mason in Chichester in 1696”

“The 2nd Duke of Richmond −was perhaps− early cricket's greatest patron”

“This −may have been− the inspiration behind the Culloden Tower”

“who was the game's −foremost− all-rounder in the first half of the 18th century”

“the −famous− Newland brothers”.

While I certainly understand the desire to remove a negative tag, it should be predicated on removing the words and or phrases that are inappropriate. And I have tagged the article for the correct reason. Cillmore (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcuts

Cronyism and corruption allegations post 2008 Mayoral Election

Following Mr. Livingstone’s defeat in the 2008 Mayoral Elections, The Daily Mail reported that “Eight 'cronies' of Ken Livingstone are to receive £1.6million in pay-offs following his defeat in the London mayoral elections.” Mr. Livingstone changed the rules for political appointees who would otherwise not have been eligible for severance packages, which paved the way for the eight City Hall advisors to receive an average of two hundred thousand pounds sterling. Liberal Democrat Leader Dee Doocey stated that the payments were “completely inexcusable” and added that “It seems like there's one law for the ordinary working person and one law for the political class.” Tony Travers, local government expert at the London School of Economics, said: “I think most people will be shocked. You could do quite a lot about knife crime with £1.6 million. It is odd indeed that the full benefits of labour laws designed to protect the vulnerable are being claimed by courtiers who knew they would lose their jobs if their master lost the election.”<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041453/Ken-Livingstones-political-aides-1-6-million-payoff.html<ref>

Shortcuts

Shortcut

WP:SELFPUB