User talk:Clonewormblademr

Welcome!

Hello, Clonewormblademr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MK Dons history

I have replied to your query at talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C.: it was reasonable in principle to add the material, you just chose the wrong article. I hope that answers your question.

I say "in principle" because it does raise another point. Among the key principles of Wikipedia are WP:No original research and wp:citing sources. So you won't be able to cite the FOI response directly: you have to wait for a wp:reliable source to report it and then you may cite that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may be misunderstanding the conventions here, but aren’t Milton Keynes Council considered a reliable source regarding what their role in Wimbledon FC’s relocation? The material cited is an official Milton Keynes Council paper concerning the issue released under the FOI Act, not original research. ClonewormbladeMr, 08:35, 6 May 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

If MK Council have published that info on their website where anyone can see it, then yes, it would be a valid citation (on the Relocation page only). But if they only replied directly to you then that makes it your original research, which you may not use Wikipedia to publish.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Please sign your edits to talk pages. You can either use the squiggle icon on the top row (after B I) or just type --~~~~). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, that only applies to the March 2000 paper - the rest of my amends are linking to Milton Keynes Council papers held on Milton Keynes Council’s website.

Second, it feels odd to exclude a paper authored by Milton Keynes Council that is held on a reliable, independent and impartial public website (What Do They Know) and supplied by Milton Keynes Council on the basis that it can only be cited when and if Milton Keynes Council publish the exact same document on their own website. I feel you must be misinterpreting the conventions here

--~~~~

1997? 2000?

I restored your edit because Abcmaxx reverted it without any explanation. Clearly one of the two sources is wrong but that needs to be resolved at the article talk page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted it because I did not feel a consensus has been reached, and given the controversial and complicated nature of the subject a consensus needs to be reached 1st before any change is made to that section Abcmaxx (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is reasonable, Abcmaxx (per WP:BRD and especially given the questionably OR edits also made), and underlines the importance for us all of remembering to use the edit summary box. ClonewormbladeMr, would you please quote verbatim on talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C. where PW says 1997. I haven't got time to check it and in any case it is not just me that you have to satisfy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to do markup in talk pages

FYI, it is conventional on wikipedia talk pages to indent your reply to another editor's contribution

like this

and then like this

and even like this

The technique used to achieve it is to begin your contribution with a colon (:), then two colons :: then three :::, etc. When you need to start a new discussion thread, just drop the colon. Or even when indenting has become silly, but just note that this is what you have done.

If you want to add emphasis, you can shout (using three apostrophes,'''like this''') or speak foreign (using two apostrophes,'''like this''').

Plenty more where that came from but that's enough for now.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]