User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2009/June

Jordan's vertical leap

Sorry about that. I had restored that based on a secondhand reference from User:OCEAN...but I only put the source in the edit summary (as reported in Tim S. Grover's book "Jump Attack" per User:OCEAN)), which had long since scrolled off the history.

So, do you feel that is a valid source for the information? --Syrthiss 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call - I don't have a copy myself, but I intended to check that book - if anyone, Grover should know. Being cynical, he has a vested interest in talking up Jordan's vertical, but we're unlikely to find a better source. Hippo43 19:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

I've reverted Jacrosse's edits to Neoconservatism in the United States for the ninth time and protected the article. I also filed a request for comment on the edit conflict. He seems to have an aversion to discussing the concerns that you, I, Jmabel, and TDC raised on the talk page. What do you think can be done to bring him around? —thames 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow reply - I have no idea what to do with someone like that, other than somehow getting rid of them. Seems able to ruin an article single-handedly and I just don't have the time to watch out for it.Hippo43 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Park

Hi, there. I reverted your edits as they appeared to be leading the reader to believe that Celtic Park is 5 star by giving more bias to one line on the UEFA news site. Whilst I would generally agree that the UEFA site is a better source for this type of information than the other link provided. The problem with the UEFA link is that at the time of publication the information was definitely incorrect.

[ http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2003_Report.pdf] - Celtic state that they need to do work to make their stadium 5 star.

[1] - Hampdens official site mentions Ibrox and Hampden as being 5 star. [2] - Evening Times article published after UEFA news article says Celtic were planning to do work. All of this, especially the first link, would confirm that Celtic Park was not a 5star stadium when the UEFA article was published, therefore it is inaccurate. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of your sources carry much weight - an Evening Times article dated 2003 about Celtic's plans for the next year and a POV piece about Hampden ["there is not a ground in Britain that has comparable facilities"??] are hardly reputable sources. While you may well be correct, until someone provides a genuine UEFA source for this, it will remain unresolved.

However, you removed a paragraph of detail about Celtic Park which had nothing to do with the 5-star issue, and gave no explanation of either change in your edit summary. Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. Hippo43 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star. As for the source about Hampden, it comes from the official site for Hampden, Scotlands national stadium, it obviously will talk up its own facilities this does not make it POV, unless you are claiming that the SFA have a conspiracy to lead people to believe that Celtic park is not 5star? --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs )

You wrote:- "Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. ", I only reverted your biased POV edits. You are missing the point of Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, you do not own articles. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My edits were neither biased or POV - I have frequently stated that I want to get to the bottom of this with a current, reliable source, and that you may well be correct. Hampden's official website is clearly POV - it is intended to promote Hampden, contains obvious hype, and cannot be relied upon to provide accurate info on other stadia.

Giving no sources or edit summaries for your contributions on these sorts of topics can cause edit wars which can make this encyclopedia pretty useless. You removed a paragraph of info on the various parts of the stadium that had nothing to do with 5-star status, presumably because you didn't check everything that had been added after the edit that you disagreed with. I do understand the point of wikipedia - I don't claim to own articles, or my own contribution to them, but you have been arbitrarily removing people's work without explanation, which is definitely not the point. I only asked you (politely) to follow protocol here and use courtesy if you are editing my (or anyone else's) work.

Your first sentence above - "I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star." - doesn't make much sense. Can you clarify what you mean?Hippo43 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not view your edits as POV or biased, however I consider your changes that I reverted here:[3] were very biased and were deliberately misleading, reading the talk page would indicate that there were issues surrounding the UEFA magazine article. I really don't understand what your issue is about me accidently removing your other information, as you yourself added it back in 17 hours after it was accidently removed and I have left it in the article for what is now close on 2 weeks. You are wrong about the official Hampden site, unless you are paranoid and think that there is a conspiracy at the SFA to mislead people into thinking that Glasgow only has two 5star stadia. Obviously websites such as the official one about Hampden can be self promoting, but I do not think that any reasonable person would dispute the information given in a specific official site such as this one, unless it can be proven to be incorrect. Your attempt to discredit an official source as being POV is laughable.

You say: "Giving no sources or edit summaries for your contributions on these sorts of topics can cause edit wars which can make this encyclopedia pretty useless.", which seems a very strange accusation from you who obviously makes POV edits. Where have I not given sources, my only edit was to remove your POV and an accidental deletion of your content which you added back in unchallenged two weeks ago? You then state: "but you have been arbitrarily removing people's work without explanation", I have removed your POV from this article, where else has this alleged misconduct occurred, or are you simply making it up?

As for your question about the article from Celtic. The article from Celtic has a later date than the UEFA magazine article. The UEFA article says Celtic Park is a 5star stadium. The article from Celtic confirms that it is not 5star and that work needs to be done to attain that standard. These two articles prove that the earlier UEFA one was inaccurate. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My issue with you removing my other edits is that you seem to have an attitude about me not knowing what "the point of wikipedia is" - I simply asked you to be careful about what you remove and give explanations for it. I note you have since edited the Donald Findlay article several times without explanation, so I'm obviously not making it up. Above, you wrote that I "obviously make POV edits" - which ones do you mean? You say you found my edits "deliberately misleading" but don't say why.

As for your conspiracy theory, I haven't said any such thing about the Hampden site - I said simply that its role is to promote Hampden, and not to give accurate info on any other stadia. The tone of the article is clearly promoting Hampden, and so is essentially an advert for Hampden, not a site which can be relied upon for accurate, up-to-date info on other facilities in Glasgow.

As for the Celtic report from 2003, it is clearly now out of date - the 2004 report from Celtic (http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2004_Report.pdf) also mentions work on stadium improvement, so I figure we need an up-to-date source from somewhere to confirm the status either way. Do you know of a source from the last 2 years which confirms the status of Celtic Park now? Again, you may be right, but arguing over sources from 2003 doesn't sort this out one way or the other.Hippo43 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No you suggested that I have a habit of removing information. You deliberately focused on the Donald Findlay article as you saw that I had made changes to it, then accuse me of changing information in it, when all I was doing was reverting your slightly controversial partizan edits. The only thing I can say about Celtic park is it was definetely not 5star in 2003, if you can find any new information change it. Good luck in finding it.--Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Celtic-first British team

• I've restored your edit on Celtic FC- I agree that the fact it was the first British team to win should be mentioned. Northern European is too vague. Astrotrain 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• What is vague about Northern European - in fact it is further clarified by stating the countries that had teams that had won it before. Astro you are already under investigation for your conduct, do not try and drag other people into your POV disputes.--Vintagekits 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rangers' signing policy

Hi Hippo43. I made reference to your excellent contributions on this subject at Talk:Graeme Souness recently. The current thread is at Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Signing_policy. Thanks if you are able to help. --Guinnog 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keele

Hi, I see you've contributed to the Keele University article a few times. Assuming you're alumni you may be interested in this: Template:User Keele Grunners (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fettes

When the press, and, indeed, Tatler's School Guide, refer to Fettes as the "Eton of the North" they're complementing the school's exceedingly strong reputation. This is not something to shy away from. Therefore, even if you didn't attend Fettes, as a proud Scotsman, you should be flattered that our country hosts one of the finest Public Schools in the UK. As far as I see it, who are you to decide what Fettes post on their page? You clearly have no attachment to the school, only resentment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Western Province (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See reply here - Talk:Fettes_College#.27Eton_of_the_North.27_.26_other_schools hippo43 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Elite Stadia

If you'd care to update the article in question with some reliable sources which back up your changes to Ibrox Stadium's classification (namely, the complete removal of such info), that would be great. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The existing sources at UEFA_elite_stadium look solid to me. The old 4- and 5-star classification doesn't exist any more, so I removed the out of date material, making the Ibrox article more accurate. To the best of my knowledge, Ibrox has not been assessed as an Elite stadium - if someone thinks it has, they will no doubt be able to provide a source confirming that.hippo43 (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see, nobody has provided any confirmation of any list UEFA maintains - only a list of criteria. Insofar as a simple change of the words "five star" to "Elite" would apparently have updated the information without removing it, I don't see why removal was the best answer, unless there's reason to believe that UEFA maintains a list of certified stadia which isn't currently cited anywhere on the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware (I may be wrong) UEFA will classify a stadium if the club applies to have their stadium inspected. I have never been able to find an authoritative list of stadia from UEFA based on either rating system. I haven't compared the new criteria for Elite with the old 5-star criteria in detail. I would not expect them to be the same as UEFA now has 3, not 2, classifications.

In any case, using the new criteria to infer that a stadium which was previously 5-star is now Elite would be original research, so not cool. If I find a source which confirms the current status of Ibrox I'll amend the article. hippo43 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Thabo Mbeki appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. For ridiculous over tagging. Verbal chat 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"non-neutral point of view"? What are you talking about? If you object to specific tags, then find sources or re-write the material. The article is a mess, and you've done nothing to help improve it. hippo43 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Peppering the article with tags, many of which were unjustified (as references followed very soon after) didn't seem to help. Verbal chat 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mizuno Corp.

Hi, you have recently removed a section from Mizuno Corp. I agree that much of the list is probably non notable, and there is no doubt is was random, but some of it is notable and could be salvaged. Perhaps inserting a {{cleanup}} tag would be better? bigissue (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I considered tagging it or attempting to clean it up myself, but figured it was better to remove it on 3 grounds - it was a miscellaneous list of trivia (some athletes, some events), it was completely unreferenced, and very little of it was notable. If there's a way to get the most notable bits of it back into the article, and referenced, I'm happy to help. hippo43 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jordan #5

Just out of curiosity, when exactly did Michael Jordan wear #5? The Pan-American Games? Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pan-American Games, I think, but I don't know for sure. This shows the top of the number [4]hippo43 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This page [[5]] doesn't list jeresy numbers, but Jordan appears 2nd in the team list, which would normally be #5. The photo isn't great, but looks like Jordan is wearing 5.hippo43 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a five. Thanks for the reply! Zagalejo^^^ 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Overtagging Jordan

Hello Hippo43, don't take it as ofensive, I am not going to disrupt your work on the Michael Jordan's article, as I am personally interested in making it better, too. It's just the quest for perfection, you see. I don't know anything at all about the NBA, I've just tagged all sentenced that seemed POV-ed for me. However, I've felt bold enough to restore some of the {{citation needed}} templates you've removed. I hope that won't harm the article and you (or other Wikipedians) will find proper sources for the yet-untagged sentences. This is 2 AM in Poland, so I am not going to edit the article in a couple of hours—feel free to edit it the way you like. I'll have a look at it in the morning. Have a good day (you're out of the UTC, I take it?) :-) Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at British overseas territories. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.

I was going to warn you for 3rr and then saw you had just come off a block for it and gone straight back to edit-warring. Your next block is likely to be for longer should you continue. Please don't edit-war but instead abide by consensus. Thanks. --John (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but maybe you are over-reacting. This is hardly an edit war - minor edit battle perhaps? This discussion belongs at the article talk page, and should be based on policy. I notice you haven't discussed any in relation to the content itself. hippo43 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've expressed an opinion on the article talk about the content, and I am expressing the opinion here regarding your editing behavior, that if you continue you are certain to be the subject of an escalated block, probably 48 or 72 hours. Before restoring the info again, consider whether that would be worth it. If you do you will almost certainly see that it is not. --John (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, perhaps discuss the content with reference to policy, rather than simply 'X is spot on', or reverting with no edit summary? --hippo43 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy is WP:EDITWAR. Whether you're right or not regarding the content, it is not your prerogative to continually reinsert it against consensus. If you cannot obtain consensus for whatever reason, it is up to you to take the issue to a wider forum, seek a third opinion, or otherwise seek to work with others to change their minds. Attempting to bludgeon users into accepting your version through continually reinserting it or demanding some proofs that you are wrong won't work. I would also strongly advise you to read Wikipedia:Indentation, an essay on thread etiquette - your habit of starting replies without any indentation makes it very difficult to see where the separate threads of a conversation are, and isn't helping your cause. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't continually reinserted it against consensus, at least recently. I asked for compromise suggestions, then followed those of two editors who disagreed with me, producing multiple sources simply to show the number of sources which confirm my point. --15:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Hello, Hippo. I believe you have to make a neutral statement on the request for comment on the section concerned. If you were already going to do so then ignore this message. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Neutral statement? Not sure that I'm the man for the job! I'll give it a shot. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe! I'm sure you'll give it a good go. Jack forbes (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm probably going to piss you off now. :) As`you requested the comment I think it would be better to elaborate on the statement to allow those coming in cold to get a good idea of the opposing views and reasons for those views. Two or three lines would normally suffice. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain

The existing position on this article was that geography followed politics. A proposal to reverse them DID NOT achieve consensus and the default position until consensus is reached is for geography to come first. Please make your case on the talk page rather than simply asserting a position that you know to be controversial. --Snowded (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rugger

Not sure that it can be said not to be current. It is rare in the UK except in the phrase "rugger bugger" but the Yanks seem to use "rugger" and even use it to mean "rugby player" as well.

It is also true what Haldraper said about rugby league being known as "rugby" in the North of England though I think your edit is okay because it wouldn't be wrong to call rugby union "rugby" even in the North.GordyB (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really disputing that 'rugger' is used, but it's pretty rare now - outside the US it is usually a term of parody. AFAIK the American usage is more for the people than the sport, though I could be wrong. It should be in there somewhere, but I don't think it belongs in the lead - it's not one of the most notable things we could say about the sport. 'Rah rah' is probably more widely used these days than 'rugger', among the sport's detractors.

You're right, as is Haldraper, that league is known as just rugby in some parts, but union is widely called rugby, even in those areas where league is popular. For example, in Wigan people may well say 'I'm going to the rugby', meaning league, but union fans in the same area don't say 'I'm going to the rugby union'.

I think "Rugby union is often referred to as simply rugby" is general enough for the lead, and without getting into citations and arguments over what names are used for each in different areas. This certainly isn't league-bashing on my part. --hippo43 (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

I understand you are trying to help on the Siena College article, but I do question your edit taking out mention that there is a dispute as to the location of the college. There is a dispute and I would like it if you talked to me about your opinions or use the discussion page of the article. While you are right as to the MAILING address of the college this is due to the fact that the actual ZIP code that Siena College resides in (Newtonville) is one of those post offices that has PO Boxes ONLY and does not deliver mail. Residents and businesses that would like home delivery must ask the Loudonville Post Office for delivery, and therefore must use their ZIP code and name for home delivery, but can not get a PO box at the Loudonville PO. You can, and there are probably many instances of this, have a location that has home delivery inbetween two locations that have only PO Boxes that use Newtonville addressed. The Newtonville Park is directly across the street from the college, the Newtonville Post Office is about 100 yards up the street (probably considerably less), and the Newtonville Church(Methodist I think) is less than a 1/4 mile up the road. There is the Newton Plaza and Newton Plaza II up the road, and many businesses that use the Newton name, and the Pruyn House, a historical museum is usually listed as being in Newtonville.(from the official town of Colonie website- mail going to the Pruyn House to P.O. Box 212 Newtonville, NY 12128 but the address is 207 Old Niskayuna Road) Newtonville is labeled by a state DOT sign when going south out of Latham on Route 9 towards Siena College. Newtonville can be found on mapquest and area maps such as those published by Jimapco. As a compromise I propose saying the college is in the hamlet of Newtonville but has a Loudonville mailing address. There are apartments and a shopping plaza within the city of Albany that have Loudonville addresses but are still within the city of Albany, ZIP codes arent the determining factor of where a location resides. If it was then no location in the incorporated village of Menands, New York can be put in the Menands article (including its own village hall) because they all uses an Albany ZIP code. At least Newtonville actually does have a Post Office. Round Lake, New York which is an incorporated village has the same exact problem as Newtonville, its post office only does PO boxes, I am unsure who does local delivery. I hope this clears up any confusion about Newtonville and I believe part of your reasoning had something to do with notability..I hope the businesses and locations that use the Newtonville name along with the DOT sign on Route 9 help on that account, along with the fact that it does have an article (albeit a stub), I can expand the Newtonville article when I get a chance if that is part of the problem.Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC) addendum- The Colonie Town Hall is listed on the official town website as being at 534 New Loudon Road, Newtonville, New York; it is directly across the street from the college...unless you proposing that the hamlet boundary between Loudonville and Newtonville goes down tmhe middle of Route 9 (New Loudon Road) then I think this should be definitive proof of what HAMLET the college is in regardless of its ZIP code.Camelbinky (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is trivial. I have no idea why you have wasted your time writing all this. It is not notable that some people may misunderstand where the college is. The article is pretty thin as it is - I am sure there are more important things to worry about. If it is a matter of record that some people misunderstand this, then provide a reliable source. --hippo43 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of examples above to show that the college is within the hamlet. Please do not revert again as this will be construed as vandalism. The college's article is pretty slim because of editing by someone with a conflict of interest, you can read about that problem in the talk page. The article at that time did read Newtonville but when it had to be scrapped and restarted it was restarted with Loudonville instead. If you wish to learn more about why ZIP codes are not the location of where a place is please read ZIP codes and scroll to the the subsection on "ZIP codes only loosely tied to cities". I would have preferred to compromise and have a legitimate discussion but you apparently think that would be "trivial".Camelbinky (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you didn't add the {{who?}} tag. I never said you did. I respect that you are trying to maintain the notability and validity of information added to articles. However, your citation about the college being in Loudonville hamlet is not substantiated, because the source does not say Loudonville hamlet specifically, merely Loudonville, which could refer to the ZIP code. There are many places that have a mailing address that doesn't match up with their physical location. Gansevoort NY, for example, is a hamlet in the town of Northumberland. But because there is a ZIP code that uses Gansevoort as a mailing address, people in the towns of Northumberland, Wilton, and Moreau have a Gansevoort mailing address. It would be factually inaccurate to say that someone in the town of Moreau lives in the hamlet of Gansevoort simply because they have a Gansevoort mailing address. Two more examples: West Mountain Ski Area says it is in Glens Falls NY. The Great Escape and Splashwater Kingdom says it is in Lake George. But that is by ZIP code. Actually both are in the town of Queensbury. I feel that there is insufficient evidence thus far to support either Loudonville or Newtonville as the hamlet containing Siena College. --JBC3 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think, if the Postal Address (Loudonville) and Physical Address (Colonie) were both left in the infobox that the Location section could be removed all together? --JBC3 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Me the vandal? The article said Newtonville first. You changed it to Loudonville and continued to put it after sources were put in per your request. You didnt even discuss your change or your issues until I asked that you would, and then instead of waiting to compromise or a consensus amongst users in the discusion page you continued to change it. It should have been left alone until a consensus. So far there is one in favor of Newtonville as the hamlet and Loudonville as the ZIP code, one in favor of just Loudonville, and one in favor of "no consensus at this moment" (if I am correct as to JBC3's position). I am able to live with JBC3's position, that makes it 2-1. I think the best thing to do is for JBC3, since JBC3's position is the most neutral I suggest that JBC3 send this to the proper place for an admin to come in and look at all the available positions and content and decide on the best course of action. I strongly urge you, Hippo, to read ZIP code and Administrative divisions of New York and learn about ZIP codes and hamlets. You are basing your opinion on "you must have a source that comes out and says it" and that you are trying to keep the "integrity" of sources. I suggest that instead of just finding sources and medling in articles you dont know about that first you talk to people who know the area, know the intricacies, inconsistancies, and quirks of the area and topic. I know you are well-meaning and doing this in good-faith. But ALL guidelines in wikipedia are just that, guidelines, there are no hard fast rules, all have the disclaimer at the top that they are to be taken with "common sense" and that there are exceptions and times to bend them and times they just dont apply. Your view that these are not "reliable" sources is ridiculous. Mapquest is reliable for other articles, I dont need to have a specific citation from a "rulebook" (which wikipedia guidelines specifically state there is NO RULEBOOK) for it to be accepted. It has already been accepted by the wikipedia community. As for New York Magazine, are you kidding?! New York (magazine) is not a reliable source?! Then I guess neither is US News & World Report or any other weekly magazine (though USN&WR is now a monthly, not a weekly). It has its own wikipedia article! So the magazine is notable enough to get an article but not good enough to be a source. I forget the other source you had a problem with. And as I showed you and had in the article, the post office allows for Siena to be the city name on the address for the college! So if you are going to say that Loudonville is the hamlet or the ZIP code or whatever you want to say, then I am within my rights to use the USPS official website to show that the name Siena is also the hamlet it is within. But I guess you will claim the United State Postal Service is not a reliable source. Whatever I put as a source you will claim is not reliable. I have put forth many reasons, and so has JBC3 as to why ZIP codes and hamlets are not the same and the problem. I have shown you that the town hall of Colonie directly across the street is itself in the hamlet of Newtonville according to the town itself! Hamlets dont just start on one side of the street like that! The Newtonville PO is within a 2 min walk from the campus and the Loudonville PO is several miles away! Go to the Colonie, New York article and look at the 1866 map of Watervliet (the name of Colonie before it was Colonie) and see the big bold letters of New Tonville P.O. they go right over where Siena College is today. Then look much lower on the map to where Loudonville is. I'm sure that wont meet your approval either. But just sit back and objectively look at the all the evidence, Newtonville for the address of the town hall across the street, the Newtonville Park is across the street as well, the Newtonville Methodist Church less than a mile away, the Mapquest source, the New York magazine source, the information on ZIP code that explains the difference between ZIP codes and where a place is, and the other information I have begged you to consider. It all adds up together to a convincing argument. If you really think an admin will walk in here and just go by what you are saying "they need a source, I have a source, they dont" and then look at all this information...if they side with you, good, I wont complain I will go on, I lost...but really do you think they'll ignore all this evidence? Admins became admins for a good reason, they look outside the box and use common sense. I tried to compromise with you by saying that Loudonville is the PO and Newtonville is the hamlet. Why is that not good enough? I can further compromise on just saying Colonie is the town, and leave it at that, with no mentioning of Loudonville or Newtonville.Camelbinky (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)addendum, I have gone ahead and asked one of the admins who is a member of the Capital District wikiproject to please go ahead and review the argument on the article page and our talk pages. I have asked only for an unbiased opinion on what argument seems logical based on the evidence, I for one will abide by whatever position he believes is logical and consistent with wikipedia. I would like to know if anyone else feels that they can live with the decision whatever way it falls?Camelbinky (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief. It's not my view that they are not reliable sources, it's Wikipedia policy. As far as I understand, verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, not just a guideline. As for your sources, I'll repeat - Mapquest does not state "Siena is in Newtonville." The blog you cited is not a reliable source. The magazine you linked to is itself a reliable source, but a classified advert within it is not. It also does not even say "Siena is in Newtonville" - it just lists an address, and as you have said, addresses can be misleading.

I did not add 'Siena is in Loudonville' to the articles. I only cleaned up what was already there. I then found a source from the college itself which you have tried to discredit, saying they are motivated by vanity. You seem to want to focus on ZIP codes and hamlets, but I have never mentioned the ZIP code or hamlet in my argument. Please don't patronise me any further by asking me to read articles (which are not relevant to what I've written), or suggest that I don't know anything about the subject. The lengthy tirades you have written on this suggest you may have lost a little perspective on it. --hippo43 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in one of my "lenghty tirades" I have contacted an admin about this issue. You can see their response on my talk page under the Siena College section. Since that admin. seems to agree that it is resonable to say Siena is in Newtonville I will now ask the admin. what steps I may take to make sure that I may add that information to the article without you reverting it. If an admin says I can put info in who do you think you are to remove it? You are not the source king of wikipedia. Please stop trolling pages and disrupting articles you know nothing about. You admit you dont wish to do research or learn. You try applying wikipedia guidelines as if they are steadfast laws with no regard to circumstances.Camelbinky (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw his reply. The map he links to suggests to you and him that Siena is in Newtonville but does not explicitly state as much. The college itself says it is in Loudonville, and I haven't seen any reason to doubt their version. If you can find good sources to contradict the college itself I would be happy to include them as one view on the subject. Unfortunately the sources you added were very poor, according to my understanding of WP:RS. As I understand it, verifiability is one of 3 core content policies on Wikipedia, not just a guideline. The other 2 are WP:NPOV and no original research. I believe looking at a map and deciding that Siena is in Newtonville would constitute original research, and that ignoring the College's own statement on the matter in favour of very weak sources would not represent a neutral point of view. Have you read and understood those policies?

I have looked online for a source which supports your view and haven't found a good one. A Google search for 'Siena "in Loidonville"' returns 30 times as many hits as 'Siena "in Newtonville."' A similar search on Google Books provides a ratio of about 7:1. I'm sure if you give it some thought you will realise that if the best sources you could find were a blog and a classified ad, then maybe the sources do not support your view. That is not to say that you are wrong, just that Wikipedia is based on verifiable information. The college itself states that it's in Loudonville. Can you produce a single good quality source which states that Siena is in Newtonville?

You asked "If an admin says I can put info in who do you think you are to remove it?" To me, this sounds like you are arguing with my reply before I've had a chance to say anything. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia processes, but I don't think asking one admin to act as a 'judge' trumps Wikipedia policy. Perhaps post a request for third opinions at the article talk page rather than approaching individual editors who you already know. We could then get the views of a number of neutral editors.

You wrote "You admit you dont wish to do research or learn." I said no such thing. I only said that I was not basing my edits on a misunderstanding of ZIP codes so would not be reading articles at your request. If you read the edit history of the Siena article, you will see that you have misunderstood my position in your rants about the postal address and ZIP codes, perhaps because you were involved in a history of disagreements before I edited the article. I didn't write anything about the postal address or ZIP code - I only cleaned up the trivial "dispute" that was already there.

I never claimed to be the "source king" of anything, though I do have an interest in making the articles I contribute to as verifiable as possible. I'd appreciate it if you would stop claiming that I am editing articles which I know nothing about - this shows incredible arrogance on your part. I am not trolling, or disrupting anything. Please read WP:CIVIL before you throw any more insults my way. --hippo43 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as you say you have no wish to read about ZIP codes I have no wish to read WP:CIVIL (as I have already read most wikipedia guidelines already, I know what they say, I have alot of free time at the computer at work). For my own curiousity and not insulting you in anyway I would like you to explain how you were "cleaning up what was already there" when I had Newtonville there first and then you put in Loudonville after it my Newtonville edit had a who? tag put on it. You didnt give me time to cite the Newtonville reference. I am dropping this because as Wadester stated a WRONG piece of information properly cited unfortunately gets priority over the TRUTH. BUT I hope you please understand that at least you are wrong about the information! If you learn anything about anything from this article. And as for you claiming what you do is not trolling and is merely "an interest in making the articles I contribute to as verifiable as possible" please show me one contribution (other than this Loudonville fiasco) you have made to Siena College. Not an insult to outsiders contributing, simply my curiousity. What do you know about Siena other than what you have to look up first? Or about the town of Colonie and its hamlets, have you ever driven by it even? I'm just curious. If you havent it doesnt mean that you dont have a right to contribute. I am sorry I do rant. That's a flaw I have. It is verifiable as well. Perhaps I can find an offline source or do more digging and find something you will approve. I hope in the future I can approach you for help on what is a legitimate source.Camelbinky (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You say you have read these policies, but you don't appear to have acted on them. Please don't characterise me as an 'outsider' - you clearly know nothing about me. Looking at the history of the Siena article, I see you have been involved in this dispute with several other editors since at least December last year. I had made no contributions to the Siena article before this started because I had had no need to read it. I came to this article looking for a specific piece of info which wasn't here, and I noticed this section. Before I first edited the article, it read -

"While clearly in the town of Colonie, it is unclear as to which hamlet the college falls within. While the college has a Loudonville, NY ZIP code, there are those who feel Siena actually lies in the hamlet of Newtonville. The college's mailing address is ..."

I thought this was unencyclopaedic, as the apparent misunderstanding is trivial, the paragraph read very badly and the article really needs more substantial material than this in it. I edited it to read:

"The college is in the town of Colonie, and it has a Loudonville, NY ZIP code. The college's mailing address is ..."

I felt this was a fair version, as none of the remaining facts were in dispute. Any editor was free to edit this to show that the college is in Newtonville (or anywhere else) by providing a source. Although I removed the 'who' tag without waiting for a response, I felt this was a better course than leaving such an ugly version in place. I obviously underestimated the strength of feeling this would provoke from one editor. After I found the college's own source, I inserted it and changed the sentence again. This all seemed a reasonable approach to me.

Moving on, I will gladly support including a good source saying that Siena is in Newtonville if we find one. --hippo43 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for writing and clarifying. Don't worry, I would not feel comfortable blocking you in this situation; I'd let another admin make the call. My complaint about your sarcastic statement was the one you called "groupthink" after writing a version of the sentence that was clearly not going to be included in the article. I really thought that was a bit much.

Anyway, yes in retrospect the summary of the arguments is probably a little slanted (please, this is my first time writing an article RFC). I do feel the strongest aspect of it is the college's ZIP Code, and if I am able to see the map and it shows Siena's campus within that ZIP code, I think that may just settle it. (I'd note too, that the former headquarters of NYSP Troop G across Route 9 is described as being in Loudonville as well). Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fettes College: Academic Results and VCs

I have to agree that the sources that I inserted are not independent sources but they are reliable sources and I am a great believer that Wiki must be extensively sourced. I inserted the section on academic results myself several years ago to give some sense of balance to an article which goes on at length about drugs, air pistols etc. The insertion of that piece was undertaken after considerable research (in the absence of cuttings from the actual newspapers of the time) and it seems a bit weak to delete those sources just because they are not independent. Please can I respectfully suggest that it is important that the sources are not lost just in case anybody else wishes to go back to the sources from which I obtained the information? Dormskirk (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The newsletter is not a reliable source, according to WP:SPS. It can't be used, though I'm sure the actual newspaper sources could be found. --hippo43 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The other potential criticism is that the newsletter is not an independent source. I have therefore now researched and identified (with a little help from various libraries) the original newspaper sources and will insert them into the article. Thanks for your suggestion. Dormskirk (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin Sheen

Hey, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Martin Sheen about the nationality argument, I'd appreciate your input. Best, – Toon^(talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll reply at the article's talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

Just as a reminder, you're at 3RR on Siena College. I know both sides are discussing this on the talk page (I'm also leaving a warning on the other reverter's page), but please don't edit war, even while talking it over. Good luck on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Treble (association football)

So, what do you think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me - nice work. I have been too busy to have a close look at the latest version, so no doubt will be along soon with a lot of pedantic objections! :) --hippo43 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look forward to it... :) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of New York

Thanks for the tag. Administrative divisions of New York could use some improvement, especially in the way of references. I've added it to my list of priorities. I wanted to drop a quick note about a reference I just added to the town section. It's not enough on its own to substantiate the statement made; I still need more sources to back it up. It cites a part of the Consolidated Laws, which basically says if a town dissolves, it has to be annexed into another town. I still have to find sources to demonstrate that places within a city or indian reservation are not within a town, and that all parts of a county not within a city or indian reservation are within a town. So I'm working on it. If you'd rather I didn't keep you up-to-date as to what I'm doing with this article, just let me know and I'll wait until you have specific questions. --JBC3 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not an expert on the topic, so I'm probably not the best person to involve. The article has obviously taken a lot of work and looks good, but I was just concerned that it cites few references and might contain original research, particularly if passionate (but occasionally misguided) editors have worked on it, as I believe was the case with Siena. I will take a look at it when I have some time. I may be able to help with the language, if not the detail. Thanks again. --hippo43 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to offer my services, if they are wanted, for working on Administrative divisions of New York. I am, with no ego intended nor insult towards others, an expert on the topic. I do have some concerns about certain judgements made in the article (the statement to the effect that towns in NY are similar to townships in other states is not at all a correct assumption or analogy or whatever it was intended to convey, its a misrepresentation of what towns in NY do and what townships are in other states). I could use help in finding suitable citations and what is acceptable as I dont know if the textbooks I use in the undergrad courses I TA will be acceptable or "original research". I know there will be lots of sources out there that are not technical or comprehensive on the topic (and they have lots of bad info or poorly worded interpretations) and I dont want to get into an argument of what is correct vs. what is said in the majority of sources someone finds if those sources outnumber the truth in what is taught in a poli sci class. I am passionate (though I take offence at "misguided") about the topic of Admn. div. of NY and if that will annoy or cause problems with other editors I will stay out of the article.Camelbinky (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC) And for the record I have never in the past (to the best of my recollection) ever edited to the article.

You don't need my permission - go ahead. I'm sure you will do a good job. I only tagged the article because I thought it was badly referenced, not necessarily wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope that if we collaborate and find common ground that we can mend any fences that may have been broken (mostly by me) in the previous argument. I have found that is the best way to make a wiki-friend, it worked for Doncram and I after butting heads on two articles we worked together on one and now I often turn to him for advice on articles. I will start putting what I know on the talk page and if you have anytime and can help I would appreciate any pointers on where to possibly find online sources for these tidbits of knowledge, as that is often easier to cite on wikipedia for others to see and verify than a hardcopy book (and I would prefer not to have to flip through many different books and re-read them just to find the specific info if it is at all quicker to do a google search or whatever).Camelbinky (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You have reverted 5 times in a few hours. That is a violation of WP:3RR. Please discuss rather than reverting. Rracecarr (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How many times have you reverted? Repeatedly inserting unsourced content or non-reliable sources breaches WP:V, as well as being inconsistent with the article intro and consensus on the article talk page about including reliably sourced examples. There is no requirement for me to leave unreferenced examples tagged in the text. The burden of verifiability is with the editor who inserts or restores material. Leaving spurious warnings like this, and patronising edit summaries, is not constructive. If you need to discuss what sources are reliable, as Dreamfocus did re 'Seasons', the talk page is the place to do it. --hippo43 (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe rossi

Hey what are you doing there, there is a procedure for the presentation sentence of the players, you are doing a vandalism...--87.20.94.46 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you? What procedure? Read the relevant policies, create an account and maybe then I'll listen. --hippo43 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Man just read the discussion page, you are making a mistake...--87.20.94.46 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the vandalism on the Giuseppe Rossi page? Explain your point on the discission page if you have one.--87.20.94.46 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Not listening) --hippo43 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationalistic edit on Giuseppe Rossi

Again, what is your problem with the giuseppe Rossi page? Do you think he is not an Italian football player? Maybe you don't now that he is a member of the Italian national team? Stop with your nationalistic edit.--80.117.16.245 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Not listening) --hippo43 (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Siena College/Loudonville

Re-read what you edited and then Doncram had to remove on the Loudonville article. You called Loudonville a town. Wadester warned you before you made that edit that it wasnt a town when you made that claim on the Siena page. Wadester warned you again on the Loudonville talk page. I stand by my statement and if you have anything else to say to me bring it up in talk page discussion as I do not wish for you to edit at my user talk page. I will do the same. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. -hippo43 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I dont wish for you to edit at my talk page, please respect that. A user's talk page is their own space and an editor does have the right to ask another editor to not edit on it, it is not an article talk page or an article or wiki-space. Anyways- Siena College has a quiet campus in Loudonville, a small town in upstate New York. Are you denying that is in the edit you made? It's on the number four edit you put on my talk page. It doesnt matter if its within a quote from the source you put in, you put it in there. I think you should also stick to the proper cite web citation template for your citations and leave out quotes in a citation, that is just opinion but one that I have found is usually asked for when articles go to peer review or GA/A/or FA promotion review. Demanding an apology is rude. You have constantly berated me for being long-winded and going off on things you dont think are relevant, as I have stated somewhere else just now I have asperger's syndrome and other disorders related to having a disorder on the autism spectrum, but I have never told you how I feel about those comments and about my disorder and I never demanded an apology, because this is wikipedia not high school (no offence if you are in high school, I know nothing about you and cant tell from discussion but have guessed you are from Texas, conservative, lean-Republican but probably not registered as an independent, believe in strict constructionism in relation to the US Constitution, if I'm wrong I would love to hear more about you). You have gotten under my skin but I have never asked for an apology. I will give you as many apologies as you want about anything you want if you just compromise on the article saying "Siena College is in the town of Colonie, with Loudonville as its mailing address", or something to that effect.Camelbinky (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tone of List of common misconceptions debate

I appreciate the points you have made in this debate, and as you have no doubt seen I broadly agree with your position and favor removal of unverifiable claims that something is a common misconception. Note that it was I who nominated this article for deletion in its most recent AFD for the basic reason that I consider it an indiscriminate collection of information. Given that it survived the AFD on the premise that 'common misconception' is a unifying subject, I consider it of the utmost importance that this be sourced for each list item. Furthermore, there is clearly a great sense of 'ownership' of this article among those who have added to it, making it difficult to productively discuss large changes.

All that aside, however, given that the article survived AFD and given that it could use much improvement, I'd like to help make it as 'Wikipedic' as possible. I am concerned about the present tone of the conversation - it is argumentative, unproductive, and seem likely to stymie progress and lead to more edit wars and the need for escalating outside mediation. Given that we seem to represent the vocal part of 'one side' of the debate, it is my hope that we can take some steps to improve the dialogue.

I have a few thoughts. First, as frustrating as the situation is, its important to remember and make clear in debate that we know that the 'other side' is also acting in good faith. Even if they are highly incorrect from our view, they are doing what they think will improve the article. Also, I think perhaps we could incline them somewhat more towards cooperation if we demonstrate that we are making a good faith effort to look for adequate references for material before removing it. Certainly it is not incumbent upon us to do this, but in the spirit of cooperation and of trying to improve the article, we could perhaps make sure to do at least a reasonable google search for supporting references before deleting and moving to the talk page. I believe that most of these items would still be deleted, but we very well might find a few that could stay - a worthwhile outcome. Furthermore, the possibility of seeing us contributing to keeping items as well as removing them, and our ability to honestly assert that we are making a good faith effort to find references, might do a lot to defuse the situation and bring make the dialogue more constructive. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this, and I'll 'watch' your talk page accordingly. Thanks, Locke9k (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I just checked and A Quest For Knowledge is actually a pretty new user, so it would probably behoove us to be extra understanding in their case. Locke9k (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Broadly I agree, the tone isn't constructive at the moment, and I have to take my share of the blame. You'll see that I have previously offered a moratorium of a week, though this was largely in discussion with Rracecarr. I haven't removed anything since then. When I have a chance I will try to look for sources, though I won't have much time. However, I am inclined to remove unreferenced stuff first and then look for sources, rather than the reverse. For me, the article is a disaster at the moment, and a softer approach just hasn't been working. I agree that if we could find sources for one or two it would encourage cooperation. --hippo43 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, yes, I certainly agree about it being a disaster. Amazingly, in the AFD, some people were loudly declaring that the article should be up for featured status instead of deletion. I'm not convinced it could ever get to that level because of inherent content issues, but hopefully we can improve it considerably. I agree that a strong push is needed for improvement at the same time that we try to foster cooperation; and I'll say this - it does seem like more progress is being made on the article now than before. Hopefully we can keep that up while cutting the rancor. Thanks, Locke9k (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No offence but..

Irregardless of my apology or not, PLEASE refrain posting on my talk page ever. This is your final warning. If you have something to say to me, make sure it is related to an article and post it to the appropriate discussion page of that article. I only edit under IP addresses as well now, Camelbinky is retired, and the IP addresses I use are not always me as they are shared computers, at home with my family or at work with my co-workers; all of whom enjoy wikipedia and I am sure would not like you assuming they are always me. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See my page for my response and the relevant Wikipedia: Harrassment bulletpoints.Camelbinky (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied here as you've asked me not to reply at your talk page. If you want me to respect your wishes, please reply on your own talk page, and I will reply here etc.

Regarding ownership of your talk page, WP:User_page states "Note: "Your" in this context means associated with you, not belonging to you." and "Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others."

As for harassment, if you re-read my comments toward you with an open mind and assume good faith, you will see that I have not tried to make you uncomfortable at all. I tried to encourage you not to leave Wikipedia, and I tried to be conciliatory after you apologised to me.

Most importantly, having read the policy on sock-puppetry, it is obvious that this is what you were doing - acting deceptively, (somewhat naively) claiming to be someone else (a new user) to show support in a discussion you were already involved in, and insulting me - a clear attempt to circumvent the policy WP:CIVIL.

Again, please consider your own pattern of behaviour. --hippo43 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You took part in the discussions at Talk:Loudonville, New York and Talk:Administrative divisions of New York under both your Camelbinky account and IP addresses at various times, dishonestly representing yourself as more than one user sharing the same view. Instead of being honest when your obvious lies were seen through, you still pretended to be a different person. Again, you acted deceptively to show support for your own case, and also to circumvent WP:CIVIL by insulting me while logged out.

You did not retire from your Camelbinky account. You just pretended to - continuing to edit under the name Camelbinky and IP addresses, and claimed that you had retired on various pages.

Please, no more lies. --hippo43 (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Careful

Careful. You've both hit WP:3RR. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to keep a lid on it. --hippo43 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your vandalism of the Asian fetish article

How about actually trying to discuss your changes prior to deleting away at the article? It's incredible how you are deleting references when it's obvious you've never read the sources. Tkguy (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You clearly think you own this article, and I think you are acting irrationally. I don't need your advance approval for any changes I make, per WP:BOLD etc. If there's anything you disagree with, feel free to dicsuss it at the article talk page. The quote in the lead was followed by two different references - if you can clarify which one was correct, then it should go back in. --hippo43 (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I was the first to suggest you put your suggestion on the talk page before applying changes. you started things out by deleting anything and everything you did not like. and you are accusing me of owning the article? lol Tkguy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Do not edit my user page, per conventions on Wikipedia. If you want to talk, use my talk page, or I will just delete your comments.

On the subject of the article itself, I think you have lost the plot. The references I removed were not correct - they were both given as the source of the quote, which is simply not correct. Your behaviour around this article (you are apparently not interested in any others) has been noted at some length on the Admins' noticeboard in the past. If you carry on like this I will have no option but to try to have action taken against you. --hippo43 (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, if you want to know Tkguy better, I suggest you take a look on the talk page of Asian fetishism from the end of November 2007 to January 2008. Kaitenbushi (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I echo Hippo43's concerns about the Asian Fetish article. TKguy terms Hippo43's edits "vandalism." Nonsense. TKguy is obviously thinking he has final say about everything. Not so. He is making highly controversial claims about whole groups of people and all the while using a number of sources that are not credible, saying things that are not substantiated in the sources themselves, and IMO, pushing his own agenda here. Further, TKguy has a habit of removing useful comments on the discussion page of the article itself, removing rational, constructive criticism of some of his erroneous edits. I am now seriously committed to making sure this article either improves and becomes a worthy Wikipedia article, or seriously pushing for its removal. I'll be checking in everyday. Computer1200 (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

By way of notification, Tkguy is under a 1RR restriction dating back more than 1 year due to abusive edit-warring on Asian fetish. I just became aware that he is again active, and have reminded him of this sanction (see [6]). MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ramón Gerardo Antonio Estévez

Hi Hippo43 — I think that both alternatives that are suggested by the Manual of Style are problematic in this case. I haven't really done research, but I assume that Ramón Gerardo Antonio Estévez would be called Martin Sheen both on and off stage (unlike Slim Pickens, the example given in the policy section). The other alternative is problematic, as it's not clear whether the legal name has actually changed or not. The problem with the first alternative is also that it looks as if Wikipedia would be an place of investigative journalism, or as if Martin Sheen had something to hide about his past.  Cs32en  15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. See also Talk:Martin_Sheen. He uses his real name off-stage, so IMO his real name should be first, then his better known stage name. The second alternative (Martin sheen, born Ramon.. Estevez) implies that he has changed his name, which as far as I can tell, he hasn't. So for me, the first version from WP:MOSBIO is preferable. --hippo43 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 - Reference to Kaffer

Your changes are generalised without reference to links. Deleting text is seen as vandalism without providing evidence for the reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get the facts that it is most common to South Africa? This is not true and generalised! Kaffer is an Afrikaans word that means the man of the Bantoe nation. It is a word accepted and in all dictionaries. Using the word kaffer also doesn't lead to court action and will not result in a court case. This is a false statement and misleading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Use the discussion section before deleting away complete articles that are referenced to researched sites and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.159.141 (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:RS before accusing me of vandalism. If you want to discuss the article, please do so at its talk page. If you want to add material, find sources. --hippo43 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You recent edits

Dear Hippo43,
I reverted your recent edits because during that copy-editings you shifted some accents, introduced dead links and even misinterpreted some sources. For example, you version states "Although before the war the Red Army was preparing for a strategic offensive of its own, Barbarossa forced the Soviet supreme command to adopt a strategic defence. "
This statement is not supported by the source. In actuality, the source (Cynthia A. Roberts) states:"Nevertheless, the Red Army maintained the posture of a powerful and agile organis- ation in June 1941, expecting to launch rapid and powerful counter-offensives against a German invasion force."(page 1294). This is a direct misinterpretation of the source, whereas the old version ("Although before the war the Red Army was preparing for a strategic counter-offensive, "Barbarossa"' forced Soviet supreme command to adopt a strategic defence. ") reflected the source correctly.
Unfortunatelly, I cannot provide the detailed analysis of all changes made by you right now. To my opinion, it would be better to do what I did before, namely, to copy the whole section to the talk page, to discuss all changes there and, after consensus is achieved, transfer the modified version to the article.
I believe, the style of the article can be improved and I appreciate your attempts to do that. However, we have to avoid factual errors during that process.
Sinecerely,--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, I'll reply at the article talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hippo43. You probably noticed that some other sections of the WWII article also need some improvement. I propose to discuss "The tide turns" and "Axis collapse" sections. What do you think about that?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - happy to help if I can, though I probably won't have much time for a while. --hippo43 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Rangers FC

I am just wondering your opinions on potential taking things about the article to admins or something similar as it appears seekerfortruth initally intentions to improve have changed to want to make the article a fansite that brags about rangers, (although i am fan i know what wikipeida is about to) they appear to be either copyvoiltion when adding things and appear to go against conesensus on things and it really annoying to keep repeating the same thing to them--Andy Chat c 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andy, thanks for the message. I agree it's a difficult situation, and he is apparently only interested in one article, but I'm not sure we need to escalate things yet. Editors like Escape Orbit, Rockpocket etc are also involved, and they will tend to keep a lid on things. Also, I believe John is an admin and has shown an interest. --hippo43 (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think escape is a admin as well but the fact remains we are constanly either having to reverts thing or now having to check before even replying, when i thought at first they said is this arealible source i thought they meant the site, i didnt even realise they just found something that one was just saying something and they where changing for themself and two that some of them where did not even meantion what they where saying full stop. Now i need to check before i studily say yeah thart will eb fine because i just assumed tha tthe sources would indeed say something in the lines and then it would nbe interpution that wa sthe problem as i assume the user was reallying wanting ot improve the article now i get the feelign it more they want it to glofying rangers and now to say anything bad against them and ot make them see m the bes tin the world.--Andy Chat c 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right about his reasons, but for now he is only really being obnoxious on the talk page. To his credit, his recent edits to the article itself have been in keeping with consensus. If he was to start editing the article inappropriately, he would soon be blocked. Perhaps ask an admin who is not involved to take a look and have a quiet word with him. --hippo43 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh i think he has got the point that unless there a consesus it will be reverted, but his motives are the problem and will eventally lead to further problems. i am happy for him to improve the article and others that what it is about in the end jsut do not want him to turn it into sometihn that brags about rangers (although admittidly i like toe article to feature more abotu rangers good points but wihtout sources it wont happen). ill leave a message on admin boards askign admin to leave message to try and get them to be more politelr and understand of policies and not try to twist thigns for ther eown gain. Thanks for the advice.--Andy Chat c 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of The Great Escape

While you may well be correct removing unsourced material, the article is being worked on at present. Rodhullandemu 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rod (and Emu). Not sure what your view is from your comment above. I realise there has been ongoing work recently. The stuff I removed was unreferenced, and given the overall tone of the article (it reads somewhat like an essay) I think we need to be very careful about what is included. What are your thoughts on it? --hippo43 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have managed to get to the library for Vance's book, but I have a lot of other stuff to do so haven't had much time to adequately source the reality against the film. I take your point about tone. Whereas it might be better to work on this in a sandbox somewhere, meanwhile after a lot of wrangling and an AfD, we are slowly getting this article up to standards, just too slowly to sensibly tag with {{inuse}}. Perhaps an {{under construction}} would make it clear this is a work in progress. Rodhullandemu 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the recent edits are all by one editor. While I respect the result of the AfD, I struggle to see how this is a notable enough subject for its own article. It strikes me that reliable sources cover this in passing, within general treatment of the film's production, rather than as a separate issue.

I don't know much about inuse & underconstruction tags - I will take a look. For me, if there is unreferenced material being added which is essentially original research, being (admittedly interesting) comparisons between the film and various real-life accounts - comparisons which aren't themselves made by secondary sources - then it has to be removed. --hippo43 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The article arises as a fork of a large section from its parent article. If you can persuade the vandals to go away, I might be able to set aside some time to concentrate on it; meanwhile, the other editor has already removed a lot of unsourced material, and added sources for other. As for comparisons in secondary sources, there is already a thread here, where the balance of consensus seems to be that it is permissible to say what is depicted in the film against the reality, as long as we can reliably source both. Rodhullandemu 22:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As the unnamed editor that you both referred to, I was feeling uneasy about possible OR that I may have been introducing and OR that may already exist in the article. So, I resurrected the discussion at WP:NORN regarding the propriety of entering facts for the purpose of comparing the film with reality, when those facts weren't used in sources for that comparison. Perhaps this discussion should be continued at the article's talk page? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree - the talk page is the best place. You've obviously done agreat deal of work on this already - thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a great opportunity to merge the excellent work done on the "inaccuracies" page into the film article's Production section and make it even better. 71.171.109.2 (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Some recent edits

Hi. Could you show where in a source they use the term "some" when referring to the character composites? I suspect you put in "some" because you thought that there was a one-to-one correspondence between Bartlett and Bushell. We don't know that, and that may well be incorrect since the film makers may have introduced aspects into Bartlett that belong to POWs other than Bushell. I think the best any of the analysts can honestly say is that Bartlett is mainly based on Bushell because they don't know whether other POWs were used too. The most authoritative statement in this regard is the statement in the film itself that says that the characters are composites. Would you agree to the removal of "some"? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed in your recent edit summary, re the number of escapees, that you wrote "the source doesn't point out the difference between film & reality". It did! And I indicated in my edit summary where you could find it. Here's the exact quote from the source, "The plan was to get 200 men out of the camp (not the 250 stated in the movie)." I agree with the deletion of that paragraph and I agree with merging the significant parts of the "accuracy" wiki with the film wiki, but I'm concerned with your style, viz. the edit warring behavior regarding "some" and not carefully checking the source re 200/250. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob, apologies - in my zeal to clear this mess up I missed the part in the Windsor Star article which you quoted above. I agree with you that it is really trivial and doesn't need to go back in.

As for "some", I can't support removing it right now, and I don't agree that this is "edit warring behavior" on my part, any more than yours. The film does not explicitly say that all the characters are composites, and we should bear in mind that the film-makers may well be making this statement for legal reasons - we need not unquestioningly accept an assertion like this in a fictional film adaptation. Moreover, sources which make the Bartlett/Bushell connection are clear - the source which I added (replacing the BBC source) is unequivocal - "His character was played by Richard Attenborough renamed as Roger Bartlett." If 'Bartlett' includes aspects of other POWs, then we would need a source to confirm it. As it stands, I don't believe the implication "(All) the characters are composites .." is accurate or referenced. --hippo43 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

1. Re "As it stands, I don't believe the implication "(All) the characters are composites .." is accurate or referenced." -

This is what was in the wiki before you changed it,

The characters are composites of real men.

This is a verbatim excerpt from the source. Also note that various media have been unreliable in unequivocally identifying real-life men as characters in the film without mentioning other real-life people as contributing to the character too. They can't prove that any character is solely based on one real-life person without getting that info from the film makers that created the character. In any case, since you weren't able to supply a source that said "some" I presume this is your conclusion, i.e. OR that is unsourced, and questionable too.

2. Re "... I don't agree that this is 'edit warring behavior' on my part, any more than yours. "

Please note that I stopped reverting and left "some" in the wiki and came here to discuss it with you. Also, please note this excerpt from the section Help:Revert#When_to_revert

"Don't revert to undo a good faith reversion of your change. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives."

Wouldn't you agree that my reversion of your change was made in good faith? That being the case, shouldn't you have followed the above and discussed it on the talk page instead of reverting?

But please don't misunderstand my feelings. Overall I like your ideas regarding the article. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Re 2 - I don't think it's all that important either way. Help:Revert is not a policy, and I didn't spend time ruminating on whether to revert or not. As far as I was concerned I made a couple of changes at once - reverting to 'some' and changing a source which justified the new text. I didn't consider discussing it first as it was a small change and (in my view, at least) referenced. I just didn't think calling what were obviously good-faith edits on my part "edit-warring behavior" was constructive. Probably best to move on.

Re 1 - 'Some' may not be the best way of wording it, but I don't believe it is OR. We have one source saying "the characters are composites" (to its credit, it is the film itself; on the other hand, it is a work of fiction, we have to consider why it would make this statement, and it doesn't explicitly say that every character is a composite). Other sources, however, say different - the Rob Davis source, for example (also used as a source for essentially the same statement in the lead), says "many characters are rolled into one" (which is not entirely clear) and others are clear that Bartlett = Bushell. Whether you consider some sources unreliable is not grounds for dismissing others.

From WP:NOR: "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing." If we had one source saying "People in Los Angeles drive cars" and another saying "Clint Eastwood, who lives in LA, does not drive a car," an accurate summary would be "some people in LA drive cars." --hippo43 (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I found another, better source - 'The Great Escape: Bringing Fact to Fiction' (Available at [7]) At about 5.01, Robert Relyea says "Maybe in some cases, characters were altered a little bit." It goes on to say that some are composites, but that Bartlett is Bushell. --hippo43 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "summarizing", you're using the less reliable sources that have no way of knowing for certain that other real-life people didn't contribute to the Bartlett character, and you're ignoring the ultimate source, the statement in the film itself where the characters came from.

Good work finding that Relyea quote. However, there's no indication that he was involved in creating the characters like the writers and director were, so he appears to be giving his impression which clearly isn't true. BTW, Relyea was an assistant that directed the motorcycle jump scene which was the scene most criticized for being fantasy. The Hilts character wasn't created by altering a real-life character just a little bit. Relyea was a good man but this is clear evidence that his remark isn't credible and that he is either stretching the truth or he didn't know what was real and what wasn't. That wasn't part of his job. Here's something that describes what Relyea did on the film,[8]

"His nominal title on a picture like “The Great Escape” was assistant to the producer but this hardly begins to describe what he actually contributed to that film. He scouted locations, he was the production manager, directed all the night scenes (because John Sturges didn’t like working nights), he even flew the plane that James Garner piloted in the film and was courageous enough to take on the hazardous job of stunt pilot when the plane needed to crash. Oh, and that immortal shot of Steve McQueen jumping the barbed wire fence on his motorcycle? Yup, Bob Relyea directed that."

The statement in the film that was copied into the wiki was clearly more authoritative and should be restored. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bob, now you are talking nonsense. You are characterising sources which contradict your view as unreliable without good reason - we can't discount certain sources by deducing that they can't really know what they are saying for sure. If you are able to make the inference that some sources may be unreliable because they can't know X for sure, then we have to be able to do the same about the film itself. Who wrote the statement that appears in the film? A writer? The director? An editor? A lawyer? Who knows? Do you have a source? There is no way of knowing if that statement is accurate or not, or why it was included. It doesn't even say that 'all' the characters are composites.

Much of this article centres on issues around using the film itself as a source. The film is a work of fiction. The statement is part of the film. When did statements made during a fiction film's titles become gospel? Why the assumption that i must be true? This would hardly be the first film which didn't tell the whole truth on the fact/fiction issue.

Your characterisation of Relyea as unreliable is ridiculous - "he appears to be giving his impression which clearly isn't true"?? He worked on the film - who are you to discredit him like this? What relevance does the Hilts character being especially fictitious have here, or the fact that Relyea directed the motorbike jump scene? Why would that make him less reliable? If he didn't write the script for that scene, or create the Hilts character, as you acknowledge, how on earth do they affect his reliability? Your condescending statement "Relyea was a good man but this is clear evidence that his remark isn't credible and that he is either stretching the truth or he didn't know what was real and what wasn't" is a ludicrous remark.

Relyea is an actual person, heavily inolved in producing the film (the quote you gave above shows the wide involvement he had), and he is speaking in an official 'Making of..' production. That same source, which is dealing specifically with the fact/fiction issues in the film, goes on to explain that the 4 major American stars' parts were composites, but that Bartlett is based on Bushell. If these statements waere incorrect, why on earth would the stdio release them in this video? There are now numerous sources which contradict your view. The 'Making of' source and the Relyea quote in particular are far more reliable than the film titles, so "some..." is clearly correct. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that was an exciting message of yours! : ) Here again is the quote of Relyea's that you gave,

"Maybe in some cases, characters were altered a little bit."

This isn't a firm statement. He says "maybe". The statement in the film is firm and states the position of the film. Also, please note that MGM Home Entertainment, which made the DVD that Relyea's statement appears on, is not the same company that made The Great Escape. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

71.171.109.2

Have you been posting as this IP? So far it hasn't caused me any significant problems but if you are, you should disclose it because otherwise editors may think that there are 2 editors with similar opinions instead of one, and that can affect the perception of consensus. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not me. What are your thoughts on the merge/split proposal here? --hippo43 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's OK with me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Undid

I undid a few of your edits to the X title. You removed information that was accurate as well. The championship is a world championship and world heavyweight championship is the only link I have to represent that.--WillC 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the word "world" to the lead, but removed the link, which isn't directly relevant.

As for belt designs, I tried to clean up a section that was badly written, but on further thought have decided to remove it as it is original research, and is based on observations of primary sources which have not been published in reliable sources. Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, please don't add material to it unless you can give specific reliable sources for the info you add. thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove information until this situation is discussed further. You observe that a photo is of someone, should it not be placed in the article of the person because it is your observation that, that photo is of that person because it is your own research?--WillC 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for me to wait until the discussion is resolved - the material is not referenced. Per Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence, there is a requirement for you to provide references before you reinsert it.

As for your last comment above, I don't understand what you have written. Can you clarify your point about photos? --hippo43 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you had a photo of Obama, that you found on here. It did not say it was Obama, but you knew it was Obama. You placed it in Obama's article. That is your observation that, that photo is of Obama. That is your own original research that, that photo was of Obama. No site telling you it was. Think! I added sources as well. I'm looking for more. Would you give me a bit. You are supposed to discuss first instead of acting, which you aren't. You aren't trying to come to a consensus. You are becoming disruptive during a GA review.--WillC 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also a personnel site. It is his business site. Would you say a primary site is a personnel site like TNA's because it is used to advertise and sell their merchandise. It is a reliable site. Simple as that. It would have to be discussed if it was not a reliable one.--WillC 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to discuss before acting - from Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes - nobody owns articles." If you have proper sources, add them to the article. --hippo43 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

About "a personnel site" I don't understand what you're talking about. Have you read the policy on what is a reliable source? There is no statement on Millican's site about editorial control or fact-checking, and it is not a well-known or respected source. If you want to discuss it somewhere, go ahead, but the burden of evidence lies with you, not me. --hippo43 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"minor changes and fixing problems." Your edits were not these. They were disruptive. You removed information and sources I may add from an article that was under debate and a GA review. If you were rewriting a few small problems, I would understand. But removing an entire section against what seemed to be two editors agreeing against one nearing a consensus on whether or not that section was OR. In the MoS it states not all statements must have a ref. None of my claims were unbelievable. They were common sense because you could see, that is why the image is in the article. Which would remove the OR from the subject. Since Millcan owns that site and he is a creator of championships which includes the X Title, I was using it to help source something he created. It is not a news site so fact checking doesn't come into play. He does not publish information either. Not all sites must be well known nor do they have to be respected. I don't respect tons of sites, so I guess little oh me makes the New York Times unreliable. I'll go off and remove them from all articles now like you. I've established he is reliable. Being the creator and backed by TNA Wrestling as the creator, he is reliable.--WillC 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make minor changes, I fixed problems. Per WP:UNDUE, that stuff should not be in the article because it is not covered in a single reliable source. I don't care if you think your material was common sense - as far as I can see it's pointless trivia which is based on your own unpublished research. If you can find actual discussions of the belt design in reliable sources, then it might be worth including.

As for Millican's site, please read WP:SPS. You haven't established anything.

The MoS is a guideline, WP:V is a policy, and reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." I have challenged all of the material in the section and removed it because it is not verifiable. If you want to re-insert it, please find proper sources.

As for the article being under debate - that debate can continue. My changes don't need to stop the debate. The discussion at NORN seems to me to be 2 editors on each side, including the original poster. --hippo43 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The poster was asking, he/she is unsure. Was not asking for it to be removed. Was asking if it is OR, and you believe it is OR. But users all read polocies different. What you are pointing too I do not believe justifies (covers) removing it, but you do. And polocies change all the time. It would be best to ask on that polocies talk page if the belt description violates that policy or on a noticeboard. I'm not into the policy work on the politics, I just edit. You believe the belt description is trivial but I don't. That would be an important note: Belt design. But I'm almost done anyway. I want the article to pass that is all, with all the correct information, and the belt being changed is an important note which was sourced twice. But you removed it when that info could have been kept and the rest removed. But you didn't. That is disruptive editing.--WillC 15:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS does not cover Millcan. It talks about a writer. Millcan is not a writer. He has been talked about by third party reliable wrestling web sites. He has even been talked about my TNA wrestling. So even if he was, he passes that and is allowed according to that. Since this is not a bio, he is allowed just to cover that as well.--WillC 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to post on a policy talk page or notice-board in this case - I'm confident in my understanding of the policies here. It's not just that I see the design as trivial, it's that it is not discussed in a single reliable source, so has no place in the article, according to WP:UNDUE. The belt being changed was not sourced - you implied it from the video. As for the other info I removed, it was OR. If you disagree, please supply references for the material. I don't know much about the GA process, but I'd guess removing this crap makes it more likely the article will pass. I have no idea why you think removing unsourced trivia is disruptive. --hippo43 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Millican's site, WP:SPS does not just talk about writers. So what if he has been talked about on other sites? WP:V states "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That is currently not the case here. --hippo43 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." This implies a writer. We are talking about pictures from the man who created the belt. If I took a picture of my dog and said this is a picture of my dog, would you question if it really was my dog? I'm sourcing Millcan for creation and for the pictures. Though I do not say he created it in the article. Because the man who had the freaking belt should know who created it. TNA even said Millcan did it in May of 07, but TNA are too retarded to remember how to have archives so I can't get that article anymore and all the time machine has is saved main pages. There are four to six reliable wrestling sites and they probably talk about the design but I'm not searching through 600 TV, weekly PPVs, monthly PPVs, and DVD reports per site to find out at this time. The belt being changed is implied in the video? What? They fucking state it was changed in the damn video. Watch the damn video!! I'll go to wrestleview right now and bring a source from that reliable third party site that tells you they plan to introduce three new championship designs for their belts. You saying it isn't in any site isn't true. You haven't looked like I haven't. You still believe it is trivia but that doesn't mean it is. It is your opinion. Trivia can be rewritten and placed correctly in an article and no longer be trivia. Thanks for calling my writting crap, that means alot. At least I wrote something though.--WillC 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I said the subject material is crap, not your writing. I have looked and haven't found a single reliable source discussing these belt designs. There may be some, I just haven't found them. If I'm wrong, and someone can supply proper references, I'd support putting this stuff back in.

If you took a picture of your dog, it wouldn't be admissible, per WP:V. If a primary source like a photo isn't published by a reliable secondary source, it isn't acceptable. If you think they state that the belt was changed in the video, supply a fucking quote and reference it properly. --hippo43 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask of you please, before you do anything to the article ask me. You do not know what the refs cover or what is important and what isn't. The promotion makes a title world. There is no governing body in pro wrestling to give world status. The 2002 ref covers two of the sources for names. I added a ref for the third because I forgot to earlier. I add two or three new sources to show the belt is new and re-added the designs section. Here is a link to show that Millcan is covered by third party reliable sources: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1179437910.shtml. Yes you don't have to ask me, but when you don't know shit about what you are working on you should.--WillC 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you can guess what my answer will be. --hippo43 (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but this would go alot better if you would just ask. You can be bold but within all the polocies you've given, there is another section that says to work with ones who have disagreements. Instead of removing refs which you shouldn't do to begin with unless they aren't reliable, you could ask what they cover. I understand we got off on the wrong foot and I'm sorry I'm an asshole. But once you removed the section I got pissed very quickly since I rewrote it two days ago. And spent a good amount of time on thinking what to write about. Hopefully we can put this behind us. I just want what is best for the article. We see differently. But that is the way of life.--WillC 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See professional wrestling is not a legit sport and has a different frame of mind. When a championship is announced as being of the world, it means the company considers it a world championship. There is no higher body in professional wrestling to give a championship world status, besides the company. So it is not unsourced commentary and with the ref it is already sourced. The only reason those notes are there, is because of that. Plus Borash was special guest ring announcer because Borash is not the regular announcer. David Penzer is. Borash quit being it in 2004.--WillC 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Will, your statement about what it signified is original research. If you add commentary to a factual statement, you need a source. Your own belief about what it signified is not relevant. If it signified anything significant, then a reliable source will have covered it. If not, just stick to the facts.

As for Borash, I just changed 'special guest' to 'guest' as it's less hyperbolic. --hippo43 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No that isn't original research. The belt descrption is OR, but this isn't. You got to be apart of wrestling to understand it a bit more. someone outside would believe it was OR. But if you understood promotions in wrestling you would get it. These same promotions rewrite their own history saying for a period of four years this man didn't lose the championship though he did. Promotions which have people lose championships before they even had the match in which they won them. In this situation it is factual. Borash was stating it was a world championship because it is the only X Title in the world which has been defened in other countries. This is also used for heavyweight championships. For the "TNA Heavyweight Championship of the World" is also used. So exactly what I said is what he meant. Would you please add it back in since the article is under a FAC at the moment and I would like to end this debate. Also an athority figure is an onscreen guy who makes matches. He is the onscreen boss. A description needed within the article.--WillC 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please go and patronise someone else. If it means what you say it means, it will be in a source somewhere. Readers don't come here to read your analysis of what happens on TV, they come to read what is reported in reliable sources. --hippo43 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are the one editing the article and removing stuff you know nothing about. You remove sources, you removed sourced information, you remove stuff which is needed but you don't understand so you don't think to ask first like it said in your links. Before removing something which you do not understand, go to the talk page and discuss it first, which you did not do. We've both violated the 3RR and you continue to revert. I came to you to start a discussion which when asked it says when involved in an edit war you should stop editing immediately and discuss. You didn't do that. Because I didn't agree with you, you continued to remove it until you got your way. No you didn't think to ask someone who is knowledgeable in this subject, the guy who has written around 34 articles which passes all the criteria for the nomination fields which they are involved in. The guy who has watched and studied up on TNA's History and owns the TNA's 50 Greatest moments DVD which lists the Unbreakable main event as number 4 because of it being for the belt and it being called a world championship. Websites don't give a crap about any other belt besides the top belt. They don't discuss the history of the belt. So sources are hard to come by. So I sourced the statement with a offline ref, and you are supposed to assume good faith, which you did not. I assumed it with you, but you think everything you don't know is OR. I ask of you to unwatch the X Title page so we can end this now, because it will not end since I have work to do on the article thanks to its current FAC nomination and one of my edits you are bound to not agree with. Though you don't have to do my request. You also don't have any obligation to edit the article either.--WillC 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea how knowledgeable I am or not. If sources 'don't give a crap' about minor belts (and I tend to agree), the material isn't notable enough to be included, per WP:UNDUE. If your edits are well-referenced and are consistent with both policy and what the sources actually say, I will have no problem with them. --hippo43 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Though with you not understanding what an authority figure is, that means you don't know much about TNA. The reason they don't give a crap is because they focus on the main promotion. The promotion builds their PPVs and shows around the top belt so the website focuses on it, though they don't focus on it alot. It is in passing with its list of champions, not the actually history of said belt. Then the statement passes the reliable source criteria. I have placed in four extra references all including notes on the X Division and its Championship. The X Division Vol 1 is about the entire feud between Joe, AJ, and Daniels. Includes major comments on the unbreakable match. Though I don't own the DVD I can't use it to quote. But I do know it talks about the match and exactly what I said. So if you would, readd the sentence since it is covered by numerous sources, all being reliable. Also the authority figure statement.--WillC 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. If you have proper references for your claims, great. If not, they don't belong in the article. I won't be re-adding anything. --hippo43 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't, that would be a revert. You would have too. You removed them, you should readd the sourced statements you removed. I'm just saying, help me out here during this review.--WillC 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with your view. As far as I know, removing unreferenced commentary (ie OR) like this is likely to increase an article's chances of passing this sort of review, so I don't see why you are so set on having this put back in. Wrestling is not a special case, NOR is a really important policy which applies to all subjects. --hippo43 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced so it is not original research. You just thought that I was making my own assumtions which is not the case. I'm going by direct information from dvds and the event. It isn't OR and never was. If it passes the review it is because of an agreement it passes the criteria. No major facts should be avoided is apart of the criteria, and this is a major fact. If it was asked to be removed during the review by numerous people as not being correct, notable, etc then I would remove it. But by it being believed to be OR with a ref covering it and a general ref also covering it, then it isn't and shouldn't be removed.--WillC 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the material you want to put back in is not properly referenced, so shouldn't go back in. If you can supply proper references for your claims, maybe add them to the article talk page? --hippo43 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced by two primary sources. There is no better way to source it. It is properly sourced.--WillC 22:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We need independent secondary sources - the current sources are neither. The statement that you added about a 'world championship' ("signifying ...") was not referenced at all. --hippo43 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No you are just making excuses. A secondary source isn't need to note the promotion thinks its own title is a world championship. Plus I said two sources. Have you checked the Best of X Division vol 2? Probably not since it is hard to find anymore. So how can you claim that it wasn't sourced? Also recently and I can get the video, TNA claimed that Christopher Daniels is a former World Champion in TNA. He has held only the world tag and X Title and they were going by his X reigns.--WillC 22:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand some of your writing. If there are statements which you think should be added, why not add them to the article talk page and provide accurate references from credible, third-party, secondary sources? Because there aren't any such sources on this subject, maybe? If a secondary source doesn't make the observation, then it obviously isn't notable.

Your argument that "TNA said Christopher Daniels was a world champion, therefore they view the X division championship as a world championship" is a clear example of original synthesis. I don't think you understand my objections. I suggest you read WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS and then see if you can provide detailed references from appropriate sources. You are wasting your time trying to persuade me by continually repeating yourself. --hippo43 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the X Title talk page before reverting my edit. No need for an edit war and I will report you for disruptive editing and edit warrs if you do revert.--WillC 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to not revert my edits, and instead discuss. I am reporting you for edit warring and disruptive editing. Also the source that covers it being a world championship is the cite DVD of Unbreakable where Borash says it is of the world. Making it a world championship. Not me saying that it might. No a direct stating that Borash said it was a world championship.--WillC 23:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Hippo43 reported by Wrestlinglover (Result: ) for more information. If you wish to reply there, please do so. I'm sorry it had to come to this. Also your last edit on the X Title violates Jargon. Management Director are hargon words. Authority figure should be used with it linking to Managerment Director, or with a description of his postion added besides Management Director to tell what it is. The same way is used in other FAs and GAs.--WillC 23:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to challenge format to lists, then go to WT:PW where a discussion is taking place. There are multiple FLs with that format. Don't cause problems please. We are both already involved it an edit war and have both been reported. You were already blocked for edit warring and are not helping your case anymore.--WillC 01:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss my changes at the article talk page. If you disagree with my changes, please raise it at the article talk page so all interested editors can take part. Making a change like this is not edit-warring, or disruptive, though it is bold. I thought my edit summary was clear. Please note that neither you nor any particular project owns these articles. cheers --hippo43 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They don't own them, but that was the consensus reached. If you have a problem with the consensus, then it is your job to bring it up. Otherwise, you are being disruptive. My problem, is you not obeying consensus. Check the FLC review, to see why the article is wrote in such a matter, though it does not show the format discussion that was done at WT:PW. Also all the FLs the project has written. The project also has one of the two FL directors, so if there was a problem, with them it would have come up by now, seeing as Scrop and I talked about the format less than a week ago.--WillC 01:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, please raise concerns about my edits at the relevant article talk page. I don't intend to get into a discussion here about it. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I will raise them at both. That way to move this disagreement along and we never have to talk to eachother again. Also remember you do not own this page, nor anyother page.--WillC 03:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also the belt is owned and copyrighted. No other promotion can have a title simular to TNA's. Also, I've asked for both of us to be blocked for edit warring at the edit war notice board since neither of us seem to be wanting to stop and this will not end until one of us just leaves the articles permenitatly, which I'm not since I've put too much effort in expanding the articles no one watches. I've also asked for the list of champions to be protected fully. Good day, and best wishes. I wish this situation never had to come to this.--WillC 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was right, you are an idiot! See you in 24 hours. If you actually want to discuss things like an adult, I'm all ears. --hippo43 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments like that are what get your block extended. Please try and remain civil. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The situation is just frustrating. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

← And I rightfully understand your frustration. As such, I would be willing to help resolve this dispute once your block expires. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oor Wullie - your removal of 'Changing times'

Just wanted to clarify how you correlate opinion and unreferenced to the removed article? Wullie smoking is available in print so anyone with access to them can see the changes over the years - Oor Wullie is the reference. I don't feel the section was a point of 'opinion' - more fact. Unless someone has copies of every late 20th and 21st century strip, it's not possible to cite that Wullie did not steal his Pa's pipe last week - but it is possible to reference strips where he did. I'm happy to add those if you feel the need.Forthbridge (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Forthbridge, thanks for your message. The reason I removed the section was that it was original research - it was not referenced, and in particular was not based on secondary sources - it was basically an editor's (or editors') observations on the primary sources, and their opinion that the subject matter has changed. If this is true/notable, it should have been commented on by reliable sources. Moreover, it went into a lot of detail about one story which was pretty trivial. This sentence - "smoking - something which would probably not be printed as a new item in modern times" reads like obvious original research to me. If someone can supply good quality secondary sources which note the changing tone of the strips, I'd definitely support including a similar section. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok - thanks for that. I'll try and source before any changes in future, and if not 'keep quiet' Forthbridge (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring. Any further disruption will likely result in a block. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on on both List of TNA X Division Champions & TNA X Division Championship. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. If you agree to stop edit warring, and take the issue to talk pages I am more than willing to unblock. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Peace

I was hoping maybe we can come to an agreement to end our disagreement. I don't plan to renominate the X Title for FAC for maybe a week. I'm going to work on the prose and sourcing problems in a subpage, seeing as you are correct there are problems in those areas. If you would be so kind, to leave me a lists of problems you believe on my talk page? I would like to end our disagreements regrading the TNA X Division Championship and List of TNA X Division Champions articles.--WillC 03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I also made some improvements to the list of champions article. I left a section regrading my changes on the talk page. Please check it before making any edits.--WillC 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)