User talk:Cosmopolitancats

Jimbo Wales's Statement of Principles includes:

Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way.

Cosmopolitancats 14:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altrincham and the policies

Your interpretation of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) is not correct. It is actually a policy of wikipedia and not a guideline. I'm not a sole enforcer of the conventions by a long way (!), infact there is an overwhelming majority of editors who conform to them (believe me!). There is also a dedicated team of editors who are specialists in the field of local government and human geography, who have all the primary sources and literature who helped formulate the conventions; these senior editors are still active. With regards to using local convention for counties, this is an old arguement has been overturned in the past as a (somewhat regressive) CountyWatch/POV effort to circumvent the rules, and I would not encourage that approach.

Also, your assertions and behaviour is somewhat diminuative of myself on the talk page, and you appear to be taking this rather personally; I wouldn't encourage that further. I just take an interest in the article as I'm designated to improve article content for the Greater Manchester area, and my retorts on the talk page serve to highlight where editors may be going off-track.

I would encourage you re-read the policies on contributing to wikipedia, particularly WP:V - "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." - but also WP:CITE, WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:EQ. Again, it is not for me to provide a source saying that the former postal counties are not used by large numbers of people in Altrincham, but rather on the editor wishing to include that they are used (despite this demonstrating that the local population would be wholly wrong to do so).

I trust this clears a few things up. Should it not, I'm quite happy to bring this attention to the wider editing community, and/or administration, as the talk page is tantamount to trolling. Jhamez84 13:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my interpretation was correct - we disagree on this matter. I note that the naming convention article has been changed since I last commented. Please identify how I contact the senior editors who are specialists in this field as I'd like to discuss certain matters direct with them. Cosmopolitancats 12:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RRJ

Case closed. Debate added to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. My condolences. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Apolgies in both the late reply and the accusation. There was evidence of sockpuppets and single purpose accounts for means of aggrivating the situation on the Altrincham talk page and to cause disruption (all of those I submitted, bar yourself!).

I requested the investigation into all the accounts involved at a quick glance and was not a personal move against you by any means.

It seems the real sockpuppets have since dissipated and I'm now prepared to contribute again to the encyclopedia. Given the disruption, I felt it appropriate to ask for investigation.

However, again, please accept my apologies. Jhamez84 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd very much prefer it if you had exercised due diligence prior to making accusations rather than apologies after the event. As the investigator easily established there was clearly no case to answer given my past record of contributions. I trust the approach you adopted will not happen again.

You have also failed to apologise for your failure to notify me of what you were doing, when you made the accusation of sock puppetry. Cosmopolitancats 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was posted to your userpage for your attention. If it wasn't, then why did you know about it at all? - so no apology should be granted for this as I followed convention for instigating investigations. This matter happened months ago, can't you drop it? And no, for your information (again) an investigator found evidence of single purpose accounts, so I was right to ask for an investigation, but wrong to include this account (I posted ONE wrong account name which I apologised for and you were vindicated, so what's the problem? I don't have the editting functions of an administrator and can't see IP logs for accounts and such!!!!!) If you have a problem with me as a contributor then either report me for whatever you think I'm doing (again), or kindly drop this matter.

You may also be interested that your efforts on Greater Manchester were strongly and swiftly opposed by five impartial editors. It would've been nice if you had exercised due diligence prior to butchering the article and formatting talk pages like articles, but I don't ask for an apology; I accept mistakes happen, and just get on with improving the encyclopedia. Jhamez84 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is extremely late but who are those five impartial editors you were talking about. THTB lol'nt (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hale

Thanks for your help on the Hale article, admittedly it did need a clean up. Nev1 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester and unusual edits

I have recently looked at a number of edit histories for various articles with strange formatting styles, and found you have made massive sweeping changes, most of which were against policy, consensus, and in some cases used bizarre presentation styles.

I must echo the sentiments of a number of users on the Greater Manchester talk page where you decided the county no longer exists and thus distorted the article (dispite all the references which prove the contrary!) towards this conjecture. I must add that I personally find it strange that you assert you are a local government specialist and then contribute this way - Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county, not a conurbation.

Furthermore, please (please), do not reformat another talk page as you did to Altrincham! It is not convention to do this, and is not helpful to the wider editting community - (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). If a page is too long, then please archive the material, not format it like an article!

Please understand I am not persecuting you, but trying to highlight problems that may generate angst from other edittors. It may be helpful to revisit the introduction guidlines. Jhamez84 13:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would very easy to interpret it as persecution. The reformatting of the talk pages was devised by me to attract more contributions which would help the page move forward; reduce editing time and generally avoid the complete shambles that existed on the Altrincham discussion page previously. This reformatting proposal is currently under discussion within the geography pages. Until you completely reverted a well organised page which had not received any adverse comment from another editor who had reviewed it prior to you, was being tested as a way of better organising information and areas which needed to be developed. All of this was clearly signalled at the top of the page - which you chose to ignore and have now removed. I note that from your apology above that you sometimes glance and take action rather than read things properly. My revised format (and considerable additional input) had succeeded in attracting attracted additional information from others and was improving the article - while the previous format and interventions only succeeded in it having 'stalled' in terms of significant new input of the required standard and it being cited within wikipedia's 'lame editing wars'. I note that your edit - made shortly after your apology above - effectively removed all evidence of the ways in which I had improved the article within the discussion pages. I take a very dim view of this. Should you act in the same way again I will be seeking advice on appropriate action.

The Greater Manchester problem was caused by the complete confusion arising fromm the existence of two completely separate pages both relating to Greater Manchester which did not adequately refer to the other. Cosmopolitancats 09:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 09:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly well aware of the need to add a signature and I do - virtually all the time. However people as opposed to some of the rather more irritating bot machines occasionally forget to add it - and I'm one of those. Unfortunately since your bot does not allow for real people to edit and does not permit even a 10 seconds delay between my forgetting and the Hagerman bot signature appearing on the page, a person who immediately realises their omission is unable to go back and include their signature. I don't find the explanation for the lack of a delay convincing in relation to the vast majority of editors who forget - and then remember. I've not yet got to the totally fed up stage with this bot as I appreciate its benefits in relation to new members however I am seriously considering opting out of this bot - which the above message conveniently forgets to say is possible.

Interesting question - should a bot originated by somebody who no longer appears to be a wikipedia participant be allowed to continue........... Cosmopolitancats 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Skills

It has just come to my attention that there are certain editors on the wikipedia who have no social skills. Instead of collaborating with other editors they hector them, treat them like idiots, and put up stupid notices, then get the admins involved to harass editors who have written stuff in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Eventually these bureaucrats of the soul, (who pretend to themselves that they are enforcing wikipedia guidelines, but are really consumed with negativity and an intense joy of persecuting people) drive away lots of good faith editors who vow never to write for the wikipedia again. Colin4C 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of Stats

If you find a good answer to your question regarding copyright of stats can you point me at it. I am also interested. So far 'no copyright of facts' seems best answer I think. GameKeeper 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree with you that intuitively that's correct. Interstingly of course we don't actually get the raw data which is in fact 'the fact'. We get the processed version - which is, of course, where the interesting 'quirks' happen which happen to statistics. So I guess it will always be debateable whether a statistic is a fact! It's so much easier to go for the simple view and assume that they are.

I think the Crown's concern with copyright probably lies with any separation of numbers from caveats and explanations in the publication ie that stats might be presented elsewhere as if they are 'true' when in fact they need to be looked at in context. For example that changes may be attributable to when ways of counting or where you are counting change. Which is a perfectly sensible and rigorous view to take. Maybe not helpful to those needing to use them - but I guess that's where being intelligent in their use and proper attribution comes in. Cosmopolitancats 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Crown's concerns are probably regarding the caveats, ironically the caveats themselves seem to be on more solid ground regarding copyright than the numbers. It is hard to argue that any figures produced by ONS according to well known statistical methods can be regarded as anything other than facts. I think this is a v important issue as there are vast amounts of Crown Copyright figures that would be of great use in wikipedia . I am about to go on hols for a week , but when I return I'll check with you as to progress and try to do a bit of research myself. By the way, I added a link here to your question Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems as this seems to be where the people who understand copyright hang out. If you can condense your Question into a snappy few lines it might generate more useful responses if posted directly there. GameKeeper 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I'll go take a look at that later (off to a meeting now). I don't think there's any great need for speed but it would be nice to progress this issue some more. And I agree with you re the stat. methods - but of course rigorous application of those methods also requires full presentation of all the facts when presenting data ie including the caveats! Cosmopolitancats 08:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I see no one has posted you a welcome message despite 500+ edits! you probably know most of this stuff by now. I found the links to be v useful and still check them ocassionally.

Welcome!

Hello, Cosmopolitancats, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! GameKeeper 08:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I had started to wonder myself whether I was ever going to get one of these. In stead the first person who turned up on my talk page accused me of being a sock puppet despite the fact that I'd been a member for months and had already worked on a number of articles. That was some introduction to a talk page - I didn't even know I had one!

I've actually started listing most of these guidelines (and more) on my front page - helps me to keep track of them and use them.

Is it up to members to generate these 'welcomes' when they notice a page hasn't got one? I don't quite understand how the process works but am happy to do the same for others once I know how. Cosmopolitancats 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes members add these, there is no obligation to its just being helpful. Everything here is generated by members. You can add to a user page by adding {{subst:welcome}}~~~~. Nothing wrong we being acussed of being a sockpuppet, sock puppets tend to be new users that are making edits that look like they already know what they are doing , so I would take it as a compliment! Wikipedia needs to defend itself so this sort of thing happens, we have to take the accusations to weed out the problems. I have found most of the time when someone talks to you here it is generally because they disagree with you, you have to roll with it. GameKeeper 08:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Visual Arts

When you add the {{Visual arts}} template to a page... it goes on the article TALK PAGE ... not in the article itself. Thanks. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cheshire newsletter

Delivered on 19 January 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Questionnaire

In an effort to assess the progress of Wikiproject Cheshire, it has been decided to send a questionnaire to members. To answer, please copy this questionnaire and paste your answers on the answer page. While participation is, of course, not compulsory, thoughtful answers will help the project to develop and improve. Thank you.

1. The project is always looking for new members, so we want to find out which ways of attracting and approaching potential members work best. Do you remember how and why you joined?

Answer:

2. How would you describe your involvement in the project? What activities do you undertake and how often do you edit Cheshire-related article?

Answer:

3. Do you feel like you receive adequate support/contact from project members?

Answer:

4. The project talk page is intended to be the hub of the project, where members discuss articles and help each other improving them. Until very recently it has been almost inactive, but do you check the project talk page?

Answer:

4a. If the talk page was more active, would you get involved in discussions there?

Answer:

5. When viewing Cheshire-related articles, are there any issues that have stood out as needing attention or frustrated you? (Traditional counties POV, poor coverage about a particular subject, vandalism going unnoticed etc)

Answer:

6. Maintaining the Cheshire portal is one of the Cheshire WikiProject's main aims, providing a display of the best and most up to date articles that are part of the project. There is currently a drive to promote it to featured status, but input from a wide range of members is needed. Do you have the portal on your watchlist?

Answer:

7. Would you be interesting in subscribing to a newsletter covering North West England, with details of work done by WikiProjects representing Cheshire, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside?

Answer:

8. Finally, are there any improvements or initiatives you'd like to see WP:CHES undertake, or general comments you'd like to make?

Answer:

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

docu art project

Hi have been reading your comments on visual arts and find them really interesting I am an artist in the Uk, I am doing an art project on WIkipedia and want to make it a bit of a documentary on how it works and am trying to do some kind of interview with people who edit the site, maybe through the phone, or through Skype video chat.. I was wondering if you yourself might be interested or if you knew of anyone else who might be up for this. I am mostly interested in the Visaul arts section as the final work is for a small exhibiton I am having here in uk..thanks..Anton Hecht antnhec@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airartist (talk • contribs) 11:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing Page

Shouldnt animation be in the see also sectioin as this is related to drawing as animation can be drawing also was Walt Disney not technically a draftsman? QueenAlexandria (talk) 09:55, 10 Dec 2012 (UTC) |}

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]