User talk:Mannafredo

Archive to 14 Apr 2008

Archive to 14 Sep 2009

Male pregnancy

Regarding this [1]. No, other than a standard cursory look, which on this occasion highlighted no obvious edit warring, I will not go picking through others' edit histories. I couldn't care less about any grudge you have with 217... or anyone else. My point was and is this; your edit summary 'no reason given for edit' was extremely poor and irrelevant. How ironic the you use a crap edit summary to complain about the lack of someone else's edit summary. If your going to undo and a seemingly normal edit, like [2], explain yourself in the edit summary or talk page - it's what they're there for - and it may save others having to question your actions. Mannafredo (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to expect editors to give a cursory look at the edit history of a page before they revert. You're quick to characterize me, though: I have no "grudge" or personal vendetta over something like an encyclopedia. The points are that this material is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TRIVIA, and that the people editing this page have been over this with IP editors who want to insert this material, many times before. If you had taken a moment to check the edit history, you would have known that. Whatever404 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just said I gave it a cursory look - can't you read properly? 'Characterize you'? I wouldn't waste my time bothering. 'Grudge with an encyclopedia'? Wow, you really can't read properly. No, the point is this; if your edit summary wasn't so crap, people wouldn't have to go checking out the history behind it. Any edit warring your involved in is of no interest to me and I ain't gonna waste my time investigating it, or replying to this thread any further - especially since you seen to unable to grasp the whole point of my edits. Mannafredo (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. Whatever404 (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert problem

Ilaiyaraaja article. You reverted at the same time as cluebot, resulting in you removing the infobox of the article, here. Consider looking at the page after reverting in the future. Regards Hekerui (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd. WP usually throws up a warning when edits collide. Perhaps I rely on that too much. Careless of me. Mannafredo (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Roy Eugene Davis

The article on Roy Eugene Davis that you nominated for an WP:RfD was restored by Rich Farmbrough. Since the article exists now, the ongoing RFD seems to be moot. I'm going to close the discussion so I'd suggest, if you think the article should be deleted, that you take this to Articles for Deletion. —mako๛ 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Roy Eugene Davis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Article-still-in-progress Federico Fellini

Potentially, articles are always in progress. The "Nostalgia, Sexuality and Politics" section has been unchanged since May, and it reads very badly. When you get around to filling this section with relevant text, I look forward to reading it - sounds interesting. Until then I am reverting to my edit once again - it is easier on the eye and the brain. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. A shame you can't contribute. --Jumbolino (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I would argue that any acceptable edit is a contribution. Mannafredo (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. --Jumbolino (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Stoddart

Hi,

I agree that in the Times article the commentators said they were disappotined. However, they are family & friends of the decessed, reacting in the context of a refusal to support their campaign for a memorial. So that article, while useful, doesn't really set Stoddart in context well.

He is a neo-classicist, specifically rejecting modern ideas of art. In this case, he said a rugby commentator per se doesn't really deserve a statue. In the quotations from him there, he did not mention McLaren by name, though the quotations set against him implied that Stoddart had slighted McLaren's character. I posted up some interesting links about Stoddart on the talk page of his article. I think they set out his basic approach quite well, and that that is really the most notable thing about his art. Are you interested in working on this bio a bit? The article should be longer for a quite well known artist.--Ktlynch (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mandela / Ayob controversy

Concerning this edit, and the ones immediately before and after it...

Hi, I think the BLP point is covered because these claims are referenced, even if the references are no longer available online. You can still get old Business Day articles from a library, for example. (In case you're interested, most of this section was written by User:Zayd who is almost certainly Zayd Ayob, the son of Ismail Ayob.) Zaian (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What! That's even worse. Now there are WP:COI issues also. I'm going to dump this in the talk page, see if anyone else has misgivings over it. Mannafredo (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeley Hawes

Hi Belovedfreak. I note you seem not completely happy with the bisexual refs in this article. I think things are even worse than that. The Diva interview is not even with KH, it's with her co-star, and although it says she's bisexual, it does not actually quote her as saying that, and may well be their interpretation of previous mis-quotes. If they have the Diva bit wrong, it makes you wonder how wrong they may have the Radio Times bit. This interview, going by the date of it, is probably the one that is being referred to, and although this may be an edited version of the interveiw, it makes no mention of these things. However, she does say things about it in this interview (fourth paragraph below the red car) that somewhat contradict what were being told. It all seems a bit of a mess, and unfortunately I can't afford the time or effort to sort it out right now. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for those links. I don't think it's too much of a mess, because I think that the Wikipedia article as it is now pretty much reflects what happened, although needs a bit or rewording. The AfterEllen link I added, while not good enough for the direct quote, gives a good explanation I think. Seems she made some general comment while promoting Tipping the Velvet about everyone being a bit bisexual, and was quoted out of context. I think there must be another Radio Times article somewhere, but the Daily Mail quote works to the same effect, so I've added that in there. it would still be useful to find this other RT article. I think the Diva article is ok to leave as a reference because although they've taken her out of context and we can't really trust their declaration that she is bisexual, there is a direct quote from her saying "I'm not a lesbian. I'm bi"; so it shows where the misunderstanding arose. Let me know if you think more needs doing.--BelovedFreak 10:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

25th Anniversary frame

This is like saying there should be no mention of New Year in the Auld Lang Syne article, because the article is not about New Year. The anniversary frame is wholly to do with the 1985 final. It has much more relevance here than it has in the 2010 World Snooker Championship article. You'll be glad to know that I can find nothing on the 20th Anniversary, so will not be adding it to the article. Mannafredo (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCleaner

FYI This has worked differently from this. Neither is about people. Was this a Woohookitty decision or a WikiCleaner ‘decision’? Just curious. Mannafredo (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All decisions are mine. WikiCleaner is not a bot and thus doesn't make any decisions. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 02:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Omega Man

Concerning this...

Thanks for the update. I have amended the section to quote a few reviews, which serendipitously allows me to add some material speculating as to a possible reason for the change (with citation). The OR bat does get wielded around here a lot, although the rules say you really only need to cite stuff that is "likely to be challenged". As I noted in my edit comment, for some reason you don't need citations to describe the plot of a book or movie, but when you discuss differences it's vulnerable to being WP:SYNTHESIS ergo OR.

The overwhelming majority of rough-and-tough editors on OR really are making WP:good faith efforts to guard the integrity of WP. Three times though I have had sources which fully fit WP's criterion of WP:Reliable sources challenged as non-reliable. That is much more exasperating. In two out of three cases, it was understandable that they might be challenged, but in the third of those three cases, I thought the other editor was just being a WP:phuqueing idiot. So broadly, of the dozen or so hardline/hardcore/hardass citation demanders I have encountered, there was only one that I actually thought was a lardline/lardcore/lardass but the (recent) memory lingers on.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mannafredo (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Common Era

Your edit here was not valid. The existing cite did not support the text. You also removed an NPOV tag without discussion. Your next edit does not support the text either. The cite you provide does not say people adopt it because they prefer to be political correct. It supports other people saying that is what it is. The original text of the SBC resolution is already in the article --JimWae (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Awards

Possibly they've changed the listings since I originally researched those articles to make them Oscar-style, meaning the 1998 awards were given in 1999, etc? Angmering (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

IPA vowels chart with audio

I have proposed you retract the deletion proposal. Please take a look. -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have. Please take a look. This was done after a useful contribution by User:Ultraexactzz, who, unlike you, understands what a 'proper article' is. Mannafredo (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean you have removed the AfD template? The discussion has not been closed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPA vowels chart with audio. If you mean to withdraw your proposal, you preferably add that to the discussion. And in general I suggest that you, after stopping personal attacks, read about the AfD process, and note the consequences of the earlier "no consensus" AfD outcome I linked to twice. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding the AFD template is a deletion proposal - I removed it. The discussion on your 'vowels' so-called-article was, by User:Abductive, "Recently bundled into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPA pulmonic consonants chart with audio" - and that discussion is now closed. Why my 'vowel' AFD continued after that - I have no idea - it would make sense to me that the 'bundler' would have closed it.

I do not regard my, and others, criticism of your understanding of what an 'article' is, as a personal attack. If you are referring to any other part of my edit, then please point it out specifically. One of your no-consensus edit summaries was before my AFD and the second didn't point to my AFD - but none of that 'who did what when' shit is really the issue here - is it? The issue is that you've put together something, that in itself, is very good - but that's not enough for you, you want more - you want it to be 'real' article, not 'just' something that 'real real' articles link to. No matter how wonderful a thing is, in isolation, it is NOT an article - that is the fundemental thing you don't seem to get, and to be honest, I suspect, your defence of your pages is more a case that a 'look at me, look what I can do, look how clever I am' pride has come over you for your piece of work - even a wiki page with just the Mona Lisa isn't an article, and I would hope would be AFD'd and deleted immediately Mannafredo (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The "so-called-article" is kept. Now fuck off. -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL - pot, kettle, black - boo hoo. Mannafredo (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ignasipuig

I see that you have now twice nominated User:Ignasipuig for deletion under CSD U2, i.e. as a userpage of a non-existent user. However, the user account does exist, as can be seen at Special:Contributions/Ignasipuig. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi James. Yes, but that's not quite how things were supposed to happen. Yesterday I re-nominated that page here, but that didn't seem to put a tag on the page or even seem to notify anyone of what I was doing or why. So, I followed this up today, trying to use something other than Miscellany, but nothing else seemed correct, so ended up using the speedy deletion option again - which of course didn't give me the chance to explain my re-nomination.

Anyway, irrelevant of my poor use of wiki-tools, and from personal experience, it seems to me that this is not a 'real user' in the true spirit of the word. However, I rest my case. You decide. Rgds, Mannafredo (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, and for the message about this on my talk page. It is true that the user's contributions consist almost entirely of interwikilinks to Catalan Wikipedia, with no substantial contributions to English Wikipedia. However, the user is an active contributor on Catalan Wikipedia, and I can't see any reason why they should not have a brief user page which says so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

EGOT (Emmy Grammy Oscar Tony)

Hey, I undid your revision to the EGOT page, but my browser had a fluke and the changes were saved before I was finished typing the stuff in the edit summary thing, so I just wanted to explain why I undid your revision. Basically the grey lines are there to divide between different sections of winner. The top charts have it to separate Barbara Streisand and Liza Minnelli from the other 10 because those two have not won all of the awards in competitive categories. The bottom table uses a similar format. Schnapps17 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see. However, wouldn't they be better in either a separate table, or in a table the was not sortable. When sorting takes place the grey lines move and never recover. Also, sorting doesn't even seem to work for some of the right-hand columns. Mannafredo (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

No I didn't intend to overlook the mistakes I am glad you spotted them, and corrected. I did write that in a bit of haste, while under considerable stress. Definitely thanks. My76Strat (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

List of rock formations in the United Kingdom

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom. proposal regarding the scope of the list. -- Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail Online

Your edit to Mail Online has been reverted as it is unconstructive. The statement makes no sense and has no proof. Your "source" is simply another WP article which proves absolutely nothing. You cannot use a POV statement by another editor as a reliable source. This is not how an encylopedic site works. Please do not repost as your edit may be classed as vandalism. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Real mission accomplished. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mannafredo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)