User talk:Francis E Williams/Archive 3

Johnny Kalsi

Hello, thanks for the message. Re: Johnny Kalsi, BTW- I was horrified at my tone on his talk page! It just goes to show- we all have grumpy days! Give me about 8 hrs. or so (from whatever the time stamp is on this message), and I'll be happy to assist! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I glanced over Johnny Kalsi's article. How would you feel if, when I find little spots needing a little more attention, I can make notes so you'll always know? I'm happy to help! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK!! :)) I'll go over Kalsi's page, and in both the edit summary after each time, and on your talk page, I'll explain what I did and why. Thus far, I did notice that Kalsi's article has his birthdate and place of birth missing. Usually biographies are more specific than only mentioning that he is from the Punjab area of India, although having that, at least beats having nothing!

Templates

I thought this template would help!! :)) It was given to me when I first came to edit the Wikipedia, and I still use it today! Cheers-- --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I still use this, especially the section on starting your first article! I consider each article I start or add to significantly as a "first article" every time. It's sort of like learning math, or a language; if we don't get the basic framework down, the whole article is off-balance! Last, I invite you to join us here:

You are already helping to do this! Join us! OK, more later, --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

First, introductions

Hi, I am really sorry I was shorter on time than usual- the end of the Holidays have slowed up my time a bit, but I can send more information and so forth tomorrow. I noticed your messages on your talk page and user page. You are obviously earnest in wanting the Wikipedia to thrive, which is great! A couple things though.. hopefully you'll take my comments with the kindness I mean. I think, looking in from the outside, that you might scare away people with good intentions when they read the messages. It's best to answer everybody whether you like what they say or not. But maybe instead of saying "IF" I respond, feel respect, etc., you could just change it by reminding them that you will always contact others with respect and would appreciate the same.. pointing out WP:CIV, and WP:AGF (both are in that Welcome template)! They are the pillars of Wikipedia!!

The other thing.. some of those little "Babel boxes" are helpful, (though I agree entirely on all the wasted time some people spend on them.. not to mention the posturing some editors do with their Barnstars! But it is a good idea to at least put a couple on your Userpage- what languages you know at what level, and, I assume, your inclusion of the Wikipedia Biography editors and Musicians work groups. (I have those on my page, you can copy them by editing where they are if you are willing). It is, though your choice-- just is nice for another editor to know in advance what part of Wikipedia you edit, or language, just because they may come to you as an English speaker, for example, needing your help. Well, that's my 2 cents; I'm not being critical, but they might help you.

Assuming Good Faith

That's awful the way others would be so critical of you!! That's why from the start, I'd just leave a note at your tslk psge up top reminding others of WP:CIV to remind people to be civil and helpful. I do promise that any changes and/or advice to you comes from the heart; I would never wish to say or do anything here that is mean-spirited!! I am sincere. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Biographies and the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia

Yes, biographies are quite difficult, especially when the subjects are "BLP"s (Biographies of living persons). However, I urge you to look here at the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia WP:FIVEPILLARS. They are the very foundation of what guidelines we have. As I mentioned before, one of them is to assume good faith, and to be civil. However, another now comes to mind. Right or wrong, there is to be no original research. That places contacting the subjects of the biographies you are working on in a very thin gray line between what is acceptable and what is not. Please remember that now that the Wikipedia (in it's myriad of languages, etc.) is usually in the first five results when people search for information in Google, thus making it terribly tempting for the subjects of articles to seek free promotion or at least more visibility, and that isn't even taking into consideration workers like A&R people from the record labels or other businesses.. contacting ANY biography subject, their families, or whatever may not hold up to scrutiny. It is why our rules about keeping a neutral point of view in the articles NPOV so important. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive

If you don't want a lot of stuff on your talk page, the approved way of dealing with it is to archive it. You don't need to "wipe it clean", since no matter what you do on Wikipedia, once it has been written, it is there permanently for anyone who wishes to look -- whether editing/creating articles, or talking on talk pages. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tiff Merritt

To Francis E Williams, I appreciate your intention to be helpful. However, I must ask you not to comment on my conversations with other editors on my talk page. Often I have other, not obvious reasons for asking specific people about particular topics or other users. I'm sorry but I am used to handling many issues on a very low-key non confrontational basis if at all possible. Thanks for understanding.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A few things

OK, (keep in mind that I never chose the Johnny Kalsi article to work upon-- as Wikignome, I edit perhaps 12 articles back and forth (I suffer from ADD so I bounce around a lot. As I am sure you noticed, part of what I do isn't even ON the Wikipedia, and I find and place photos on several of the Wikipedias, which is how I came across the Kalsi article- finding the photo for it. I just went through and placed a bunch of spots little comments of what is needed to get the article in shape. BTW, if you can figure it out, the Dhol official website has some great music and the article could certainly use a music clip or two given that Kalsi's music does incorporate so many genres. You have the advantage-- I suck at learning computer stuff, but there's a "how to do" page in Wikipedia to do it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, If you look at the diversity of the subjects on my uaer page you`ll also note I have a "butterfly mind". I have an interest in music but I have avoided the Dhol Foundation website so as to keep an open mind about what I`m working on. I try not to link anything to it to maintain neutrality. I have no end of audio, (owned a recording studio in the late 60s), so I`ll try to get some copyright free links. I have sorted out what you annotated in the article - dates - refs etc. If it helps to have any knowledge of the processes that are available on the Internet, please don`t hesitate to ask, I`ll answer what I can. I have a highly technical background. I also research for other users and sites of common interest. (Historical etc).Francis E Williams (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me!

OH, before I forget, can we just keep our conversations here on your talk page? It's easier! OK? I'm not bad as a copyeditor, and have now had a lot of experience with certain parts of the Wikipedia, but never really learned much on the computers. I was all over the map too, when I began editing here, and then found a niche where I'm comfortable for the most part. Some people gravitate towards controversial articles like Tvoz does, others pick discographies, or making portals, or album articles and song articles. I picked musicians' biographies and obtaining photos, that kind of thing. I was just thinking if you have a history using computers you could easily make the little music clips that are so helpful to demonstrate how some musicians sound! Another editor was making them for "my" articles, and said it was really simple, just a few minutes time to make and place; but he's temporarily not in Wikipedia- that's why I thought I'd mention it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I use Cool Edit Pro software as well as a multitude of other audio programs, so yes, I can slice up, convert whatever is suitable very easily.Francis E Williams (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

To help your day go along in a positive direction. Johnny Kalsi is a "C" grade article now thanks to your assistance.Francis E Williams (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

City of Bath Technical School

Thank you for drawing those facts to my attention, I have had a further read of the article, and re-assessed it as "B/Low". The article is quite long with informative and well referenced content (I am aware that previously I stated that the article could do with referencing, but this as a mistake, sorry!), the only major issue that I have found is that the History section reads like a list, and would be better presented as prose. In the review I also mentioned that the article would be a good candidate for a peer review, as it seems to be mostly complete, which then may enable it to attain "Good Article" status. If you would like the article re-assessed by a different assessor, please list the article in Wikipedia:WPSCH/A#Assessment_requests. Sorry for my incorrect assessment first time around! TheAuthor22 (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you can move it if you like, but i'd prefer if my comments weren't duplicated, so if you could mix in my original assessment somehow I think that would be better. TheAuthor22 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Preview, pls.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to E 14 (Norway), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your well intentioned comments. Perhaps the history would have revealed to you that the article was already laid out correctly until another user "re-arranged" it with an automaic tool. I am assisting a norweigian contributor whose english is not as good as he would like ti to be, would you like to help him Guy?. Francis E Williams (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the talk page where it was originally placed. Edits like this could have been avoided had you used preview first. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

End of conversation.Francis E Williams (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI - it means "Administrators Noticeboard - Incidents"

Abridged chronology

Do me a favour Rod and keep an eye on Transport in Somerset. Francis Williams seems to have spat out his dummy and therefore I'm backing off for a while. I don't want to get dragged down to his level. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Transport in Somerset - there do seem to be a lot of edits today. You are probably best to walk away for a while & we can all have another look at it another day.— Rod ^talk 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have a reply to your message in Archive 3.Francis E Williams (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. I've just gone to WP:ANI because this response is out of order. Direct threats against me for doing what? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the notice when editing the page, you are meant to inform editors that you have raised an issue at ANI about their editing. I've informed FEW of the discussion you raised. Mjroots (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know. Thanks for the heads up, next time I will do just that. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"You're a sad, sad person and I pity you" is an unacceptable personal attack. I'd suggest redacting that comment ASAP. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring to other editors as "editors" in edit summaries, as you did here, is considered quite rude. I would suggest not doing this going forward. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would ask to consider if you have given similar advice to the other parties involved. I have tried to use the "softly softly approach" with a small number of very arrogogant people, it has not been succesful. I am now returning the compliment to them. Editing can be considered skillful, the act of continually removing suitably sourced "contributions" and content from multiple contributors in articles by certain "editors", (respected by a minority, or otherwise), is counter productive to those many individuals who have taken the trouble to "contribute". The issue is now perceived to be a personal one between two individuals. To be followed around by the same pair of people, and to have researched and verified information removed (on a whim), is not acceptable either. One can appear to be quite impartial but very patronising, the other should be more cautious about creating contraversial, and confrontational situations. He has now polarised certian individuals like yourself, who should research the problem before making comment.

It may take you considerable time to verify this fact using the history of contributions made by the parties concerned in the recent fiasco. If someone is rude to me in the real world, then they receive the same treatment. This is cyberspace where some people hide behind "nicknames" and "badges of authority". It was my intention to make it clear that this behaviour is no longer considered acceptable. Study the history of Transport in Somerset and you will see the "edit war" that devoloped between two contributors, failing to understand both content and article structure. Intent on re-inventing the wheel to suit ther own ends. This was attempted by me to be reverted to the original and the situation clarified, which then initiated a process by one of the "editors" to deliberatley disrupt this process by removing and randomly placing content into un-rrelated sections. I am going to tag the article as "Unclear" to help avoid the repetition of adding content to the wrong sections. (railway, modern) was placed in unrelated part of the article and has caused it to be repeated by other "contributors". I use "these things" to emphasise, rather than use the edit tool bar to bold text. I suggest this conversation be continued on the talk page of the article. That is a more appropraite place, others may then comment on this debacle.

P.S. check out my contributions, you will find I have been consistent on Wikipedia and always courteous until continually provoked over the last few months. It would appear that I am considered "fair game" as an older more experienced and suitably qualified member of the "University of life". Francis E Williams (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I just thought I'd add a note here. I don't believe anyone wishes you ill, nor wishes you to leave the project. Perhaps WP:NOTAFORUM would be helpful to you, as it explains other editor's expectations with regard to article talk page use. With best wishes to you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Francis E Williams (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I previously warned you about personal attacks. Claiming that something is "the action of a desperate man trying to exonerate himself from responsibilty" is not considered an acceptable communication style here on Wikipedia, regardless of your personal norms. Please remember to comment on edits, not editors. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for the further advice regarding the NAI discussion that you left on my talk page section. I noted that the discussion was about "edits" and that it was heading in a positive direction. The discussion was initiated with my name included anyway. This complaint could have been made simply with a link to my talk page "edits". However, it appears to have been a singungular personal issue to which you should have not been involved. This may have also avoided another user with a personal "owner" issue from Radio becoming involved. The dispute about page "ownership" is a seperate issue in its own right, and does not involve "threats". I was not the user that "re-ordered" the radio talk page into a mess. My edits were obviously being tracked by a user at radio, I have not posted anything on this persons talk page, nor he on mine. There should be no possiblity of "auto addition" to either watched pages. (See my watchlist historical "log" for verification). I understand how the Wikipedia "audit trail" and "logs" work.

The person who "highlighted the edit issue" posted two personal (defamation of character) attacks, one on the NAI dscussion page, one on my talk page. In ignorance of these NAI proceedings, (about naming people refering to peoples character, not their edits), I responded to the personal (defamation of character) attack on NAI in the same manner. Perhaps too hastily, if these additions are also deemed inappropriate sections, should they be recorded on our respective talk pages instead? I agree to their transference, perhaps the other party may agree also. I think it will help to restore the tone of the discussion. I am sure the "edits" issue investigation by an administrator will take place in due course. Your recent post occured overnight for me, I have only just observed it. I note that you have made comment to the complainant about one event but not the other yet. I hope this matter may be resolved soon, I am sure all parties involved will take on board the ramifications of their actions in future, and will move toward resolving their "issues" with each other without involving other people. I realise you have a very difficult job, and that any personal bias cannot be a contributing factor. I am administrator at several school related websites, and have "chaired" medium sized organisations. I hadn`t interpreted your first message as a "warning", only advice. Francis E Williams (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

N.B. - (this comment has now been clarified with both strikethrough and added content (in brackets)). Francis E Williams (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and vandalism?

How do you come to the conclusion that contributions by myself and another reputable Wikipedia contributor Mhockey (talk · contribs) is "edit war vandalism". Deleting unsourced, or improperly sourced information, and making changes to comply with the manual of style - specifically the use of upper/lowercase in section headings - is neither edit warring nor vandalism. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 20:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Two people hell bent on contradicting each other and both of them NOT READING or UNDERSTANDING the sections in this article, counts not only as vandalism in my book but downright stupidity lack of any intelligence gathering as well. Research what is written FIRST before diving in and "editing". FIRST rule of Wikipedia, know your subject. This article was created by me as requested, and assessed by the Project team. It has not needed a "reviewer" to act as an "assessor" regarding its structure and content since its creation. Unless you now want to let "reviewer status" to go to your head that is. I used to see a somewhat "eccentric" but effiecient editor, now I see an intolerant person intent on wielding a big stick, and now being abused by people who are taking the rise out of you (mummywhale etc.). If you want to initate an "edit war" with me, I have plenty of time on my hands at the moment, I`ll try my best keep you busy for a very long time. I have no intention of embarrasing you on your talk page.This is the end of this conversation. Francis E Williams (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to read WP:OWN and WP:TEA. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Simple Bob has said. Your comments are quite uncalled for. I would add that you need to read WP:AGF also.--Mhockey (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your comments are both debateable, and not original, I have received "good advice" from multiple users who assume lack of intellgence and research on my part. WP:PROTECT was being applied here (see latest article revision). I have taken these comments onboard, and see no other method to prevent this well intended "advice" from contaminating other users talk pages. If you are unble to deal with plain speaking, do not place yourselves in the public domain where your actions may be subject to scrutiny. My talk page and user page have been heavily modified recemtly to try and avoid this very scenario. I have an opinion, I am entitled to use free speech to express it. If you look at the facts, in due course you may arrive at a conclusion. If you think that polarising the issue is solving the underlying problems on this encylopedia, it will not change the perception that people have about this publication. My remaing years, and my remaining eye sight has been used to convey accurate knowledge to further generations, I don`t know why I am explainging myself you all and sundry. I have human rights as well . Please leave me to exploit them. If you both prefer to discuss the subject on your talk pages, I will be happy to post this on both. End of conversation please , and let me try to improve Wikipedia without due let or hinderance in future. Francis E Williams (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, other people have the same objectives of improving WP and conveying accurate knowledge on subjects that they have knowledge of - including topics that you have knowledge of. Please recognise that. Free speech is fine, but WP also requires WP:CIVILITY. Nobody is suggesting lack of intelligence or research on your part, but equally it is not helpful to accuse other editors of that.

Did you really mean to refer to WP:PROTECT? - I cannot see that the page has been protected. You may want to use Template:In use if you want other editors to wait until you have finished. --Mhockey (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant "protect" the content, not the page itself, I sould not have applied the brackets. That is some of the most helpful advice I have received recently, re. adding a pause facility. I do not claim "exclusive rights" to knowlegde despite what is sometimes mis-interpreted. I recognise lack of knowledge and flaws in characteristics that exist in some "contributors", having dealt with the public contually since 1963. How else can this issue be avoided in those who are "tolerably challenged"?. Pesistent removal of sourced and verified contribution by "Simple bob" are not helping. I have just replied to the "threats" I am alleged to have made to him. I will continue to repair his "edits". He will be observing this conversation. He needs to avoid following me around and removing content that has been applied by others using "good faith". Add a tag to identify a reference issue, but a "blitz" on multiple articles in a few minutes, is not appropriate. The use of "imotive" language like "not relaible", remove the "ref" (and the whole section to which it applies) is counter productive. If there is to be a "reliable source list" created, show to the contributor where it may be found. I have repaired very many of these "edits" myself. I could write for england about this practice, but I will refrain for now. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all suprised that you are unapologetic for your inflammatory outburst, either here or at the ANI discussion. That aside, please tell me where the Bridgwater, Burnham and Minehead ferries launch from and where they travel to? The references don't show anything to do with ferries at those sites - they are either broken or unreliable (and I use that as the opposite of reliable as in WP:RS). --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouild suggest another read of the article, the three newspaper links that mention ferries still work O.K. the links are not broken. The reference to the Bridgewater article is still working as well. I suggest you have something wrong with your computer browser software. It is now time for you to offer explanation to the ANI discussion. Why as a member of the project that created that article, (which included Rodw, who advised backing away from the issue), you failed to notice my correction to the "good faith", "buses" reword of the section that dealt with "road" solutions in the 21st century. You were quick enough to respond, as soon as I went near the page, (see history timies and editoral comments). You obviously ignored my editorial comment about the section not just being about buses. You then went on to edit war with the contributor and myself simultaneously.

Despite the fact you were aware I was trying to protect the integriry of the article, and inform the contributor most clearly that the "road" section was not just about "buses". Perhaps you could explain why you provked the incident still further by further edits with the contributor? The fact that you and I have history, makes your "allegation" of threats less credible. I can show to the ANI both that histrory, and the encouters you have provoked with contributors when you assumed your new role as "reviewer". I have no peronal "axe to grind" with you, but your removal of accurate and good sourced content at [[[Culverhay School]] alerted me to your unusual behaviour. I think we should now transfer this conversation to both your talk page and the transport in Somerset talk page so that others may contribute to my "alleged" vandalisation of the article.

Let the outcome of the ANI discussion decide from whom, (and if any), apology is required, and if any unprovoked "inflammatory" remark was made during that article encounter. I can understand the "psychology" being atttempted here to prove you are "whiter than white", it will reflect on your standing in this community, It will not affect mine. I do not seek attention or recogniotion for my contributions. You came to me remember, you made the complaint. You have been instrumental in suspending another user because he dared to conflict with your own personal opinion. He was not "banned" as you quoted when you removed the issue from your talk page. I am an intelligent person, who observes and reacts to his environment. I do not suffer fools gladly, and have been instrumental in protecting the rights of the individual with central government, local authorities, inland revenue, accountants, solicitors etc. This minor "hiccup" is nothing by comparison. People like me will not be intimidated by bullying tactics, neither will we go away, or stop making our point to those who simply refuse to remain biased. Oh, by the way why did you feel it was neccessary to remove your "one finger salute" from your user page? it was nor motivated by another discussuion with somebody else was it, or am I not allowed to comment on you contribution, but it appears that you can mine of course. Perhaps you will all now heed my request to cease this discussion on my talk page. it is not helping the ANI discussion one bit. Post your comments there please if you think they are relevant. Francis E Williams (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For contributors, this is the link to the ANI discussion where you may post any further contributions :- [1] - This incident discussion is now closed. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You are a sad, sad person and I pity you. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, but the feeling has to be reciprocated. Francis E Williams (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)