User talk:Deering 50

Welcome!

Hello, Deering 50, 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 take 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! --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to Guy Martin

I have restored two areas where you have deleted important material from the lede (lead, intro) which needs to be a concise summary of elements found elsewhere in the article. This is standard Wikipedia policy and layout. Please do not delete these areas based on what you think is less-important and needs consigning into the main body of text. Furthermore, please do not be over-ambitious in re-writing an established article as a newcomer. I shall wait until you have finished altering this article. Also, please note Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy. It already seems that you have a keen interest in this article. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for what, exactly? If you have other issues, I'd rather know now, than waste any more time attempting changes you're going to reverse. I'm not sure what conflict of interest I'm supposed to have - are you accusing me of something? It's not me who seems eager to name his two books in the introduction.....i'll freely admit I am a fan, but I think I'm also smart enough to know that a Wikipedia page is not meant to be a fan page (or a clone of his official site). I've had a good look around at other articles on personalities, and I see none that consider the things you seem to do, as important enough for the introduction. Martin was born in Grimsby, so what? While this is obviously important to him, and maybe even for people form there, but I see no evidence anyone else considers it important enough to be noted in the very first line (as opposed to simply stating he's English and is in his 30's). It's not like he competes for Grimsby, is it? The "publicly known primarily" phrasing definitely seems unique - no other article here seems to consider it important to note what jobs people do that they're not known for - there's no articles on people who are simply lorry fitters here, that's for sure. I could almost understand if you'd put it in context at the end, perhaps explaining why he wants to retain that job (desire to remain an amateur sportsman and a general disinterest in becoming a celebrity for the sake of it), but you haven't, so I'm left scratching my head. And again, I see no other articles on sportspeople or television presenters who have their autobiograpies name-checked in the introduction - it's not exactly going to be news to anyone that someone of his profile has two such books out.

I'll try to address the issues but I am unsure you will be convinced, and I invite you to spend a few hours trawling through the revisions (this message only in rough-order). I am not biased either way, and I am confident I can approach it neutrally. Normally when one (new?) editor decides to completely re-write an article, it flags up. There are various ways of describing it which I wont go into, but often these editors have close-connections, eg family, school-chums. Often they can be too-close to be objective, and to have a perception of what is best for Wikipedia and its readers. In this case, the article is far too long and contorted, too many page-downs, meaning readers may lose interest. There has been vandalism and petty point-of-view-pushing, often by occasional contributors after seeing TV progs. One such contentious area was Kirmington/Grimsby (I had to look that up, couldn't remember the village), another was North Lincolnshire/Lincolnshire, another was the prominence of truck mechanic. He is not an amateur racer, but with a trade/income to fall back on, is not reliant on full-professionalism and still enjoys the heavy mechanic-ing (his video-statement sentiments, not mine). The way to address the ongoing petty to-and-fro changes was to add all the detail prominently and keep it stable. Until you came along. The unusual way it was written (by me) was dictated by the repeated interferences. If all of this does not directly compare with others then I hope you can appreciate this was the motivation, not for any direct comparison or for any other reason. Just because others may not have books in the lede does not mean it's 'wrong' for Guy Martin. It could appear as WP:PROMOTION, so I have amended it as the books are recent. I did not write it, I just added/re-added and cleaned up, etc. Similarly there are POV-pushers who change English nationality (as you mentioned above) to British and vice versa. Under the circumstances I feel it is appropriate to add the detail into the lead for this particular page. It might help if you consider Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Lead section. Such a large article merits a more-comprehensive lede, it's just a way of summarising. What you are doing is to unilaterally decide what should be omitted, because you think its not important-enough, and not knowing of the page's historical changes.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well until I do actually vandalise the article or do something else that is ridiculous, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about my motives. I am editing this page because I looked it up, because yes, I am a fan, and I saw it was pretty crap. While I'm sure there must have been lots of fights over it in the past, that doesn't interest me one bit, not if it has resulted in a poor article. As I said, while he may enjoy being a mechanic, nobody who is interested in what's best for Wikipedia is going to ignore the basic fact it doesn't writes pages about lorry mechanics, hence there is no need to mention it in the introduction (or if you do, you do it in context, explaining why he has kept doing it). Whatever the background of the the Kirmington/Grimsby issue, if you hope to be objective, it's probably more important that you actually bother to watch his shows - his most recent one (Wall of Death), Kirmington ("Kirmo") was mentioned prominently, so obviously, to him, it's important. My view is his birthplace is irrelevant as far as his Wikipedia introduction goes, just like his love of being a lorry mechanic is. I'd appreciate it, if you can't think of any other instance where the solution is to do what you've done, then perhaps appreciate that you maybe don't know as much as you think about what's best for Wikipedia (it's not like it's hard to figure out that your version, particularly the odd word choice about known for, is definitely not standard practice). If you object to changes simply because they're unilateral, then you'll never know if they can ultimately be defended (it sounds to me like you've been repeatedly caving in to actual inexperienced people who don't have this article's quality at the forefront of their motivation, rather than standing your ground and ensuring stuff that's right is not degraded). I'm well aware introductions of pages this large should be longer, but at the moment I'm concentrating on fixing the state of the rest of it (having already expanded it a little bit, to the bare minimum of what's needed right now). Deering 50 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guy Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Arrow. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Deering 50. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]