User talk:PeterBiddlecombe

Citations

Hi Peter (or, if you're still hacked-off today, perhaps it should be Pete),

Welcome to the Edit Wars!

Firstly, I think that 'Times for the Times' is a splendid website. You (especially) and your team are truly noble to be providing such a wonderful resource for those who need explanations of Times clues. I visit it about once a week and am delighted that it is there (now that I've got used to the ridulously low solving times). I know that you do "know whereof you speak".

However, try not to get too annoyed by the demands for in-line citation. They are in line with current guidelines. To quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability:-

"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."

Over the time I've been using Wikipedia interpretation the interpretation of this seems to have hardened. My impression is that three years ago just putting a list of references at the bottom of an article was considered enough. Clearly this gave a lot of scope to stick in unverifiable material. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, say, it works because the author of the article has been vetted and approved in advance and can therefore (in theory) be trusted not to be too far off-centre. Wikipedia's editors are self-appointed, of unproven expertise and may well have their own highly controversial viewpoints. Asking for a higher standard of proof is not unreasonable.

You may feel that your contributions have been unfairly targeted. Certainly there is plenty of other text in the article to which "citation needed" tags would seem equally appropriate. I feel (though I'm not any sort of expert on this) that there may be two reasons.

Applying new standards to the existing body of text is going to be an arduous task and, since WP editors are volunteers and don't have to do it, is likely to proceed slowly. It is relatively easy to pick on new material and make that conform. The backlog may not get cleared up quickly but at least it won't grow bigger.

Work is done by individual editors acting independently. What Barnabypage does in the hours he gives to Wikipedia may not be the same as what other editors do. But if what he does fits within the Wikipedia guidelines (and I think it does here) you just have to go with the flow.

I also think that at least one set of citations can be provided. without too much work (for a dedicated cruciverbalist like yourself, that is). This is the sentence (with asterisks added by me):-

"Of these, the cryptic crossword in The Times is commonly believed to be the most difficult*, though any of the Times, Independent or Guardian is probably equally likely to be the hardest of the day (as measured by timings for quick solvers).**"

I think that * would be confirmed in the 75 years of the Times Crossword book (in the introduction I think but I can't find my copy at the moment). And ** could probably be dealt with by putting in a reference saying "For example see the times at….." and giving web-links to five crossword blogs for the same date. If you've never done it before, you use <ref> and </ref> to border your references and [http://www. etc] for a web-link. Or you can always find an article with citations and then go to "Edit this page" and see what text was used to achieve the effect. (I hope I'm not teaching my grandfather to suck eggs here)

I hope this helps. I know what you wrote is correct but I also agree that there should be evidence to back up your statement. It's a hard life.

Regards,

Dinoceras (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I see someone's found one citation, anyway.

Regards

Dinoceras (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PeterBiddlecombe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block relates to a shared IP address (as far as I know I have no choice in the ISP address chosen by my ISP. I am perfectly happy to log in to edit, so request an unblock unless there's something I personally have done that's causing a problem. If I have, it's news to me.

Decline reason:

It appears you're caught in a rangeblock. You may want to see about getting an exemption. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

PeterBiddlecombe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

$3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

$2

Blocking administrator: $1 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: I apologize for this: the reason we're unable to help is that regular admins do not have the ability to determine the IP address you use when you are logged in. This is an important safeguard on your privacy. Only a very few users have the ability to see your IP address, and there are strict rules about when they can use that ability. You, however, are able to learn your IP address and it normally shows up on the screen you see when you try to edit and get the message saying that you're blocked. It's not clear to me that you are caught in a rangeblock necessarily; it may just be a hard IP block, but without you telling us the IP address we won't be able to figure it out. Blocks like that are important at times because of certain obnoxious people who abuse Wikipedia consistently using multiple accounts; these tools are the only way to stop them. Feel free to email me if you need help getting the information posted, and we'll try to get this figured out as soon as possible. Mango juice^talk 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is at least my second attempt to gert unblocked. I CANNOT SEE THE SENSE in applying "range blocks" when users are logged in. It seems like a great way to discourage participation. I'm also unimpressed by replies to unblock requests that appear to amount to "I'm not unblocking you even though that seems the right thing to do, because you've failed to jump through the correct set of hoops."

Hi, I am the admin that placed this rangeblock (after an investigation by multiple admins and checkusers). I apologise for the inconvenience, but we have a very persistent vandal on your range who vandalises from a number of logged in accounts. This range block is intended to deter his activities and it unfortunately has some bad side effects. Which includes your being caught in it... again, I am sorry, we did not take this step lightly. I have checked and I see no technical reason not to grant you an IPBE. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, based on Lar's review, I've granted you IP block exemption. You should now be able to edit. Please be aware that while IP block exemption would allow you to edit Wikipedia via open proxies, you are not being permitted to do so. Further, the IP block exemption may be reviewed or removed at some point in the future (say, when the range block expires). Mango juice^talk 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Success! PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trombone questions

Hello Peter, you can call me 74. I plucked your name from the Trombone and Types of trombone article. Do you have some time to mess with these things nowadays? There is a beginning-editor person trying to write up something on an annual trombone festival held in Hong Kong; the topic is close to being WP:NOTE enough for a dedicated article, and is definitely WP:NOTEWORTHY for inclusion in some existing article. However, unlike baritone#Artists and brass_band, the trombone-articles don't list the major festivals, except as raw external links e.g. Types of trombones has a couple of the festival-organizers as external links (which makes little sense). Anyhoo, if you would like to help Stanley and myself, it would be appreciated. I've also done some research on our existing trombone-festivals, both of which are stubs, and added the sources to their talkpages, if you feel like working on that stuff.

User_talk:Stanleywlchen#getting_SliderAsia_article_written_correctly , needs analysis of whether enough WP:RS exist, plus help drafting prose neutrally
Talk:International_Trombone_Association#potential_WP:RS, needs sources integrated into the existing article
Talk:Eastern_Trombone_Workshop#potential_WP:RS, needs sources integrated into the existing article
Trombone, possibly needs a new section on festivals/soloists/professors/symphonies/etc (cf baritone and brass band)

Thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talkpage, so I'll know you did. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my field - suggest asking at http://tromboneforum.org/ PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might try that. :-) Definitely not my field either, but browsing wikipedia's existing entries plus a bit of WP:GOOG helped me generate mild-clue. Actually, though, my main goal is to find a neutral editing-buddy who likes trombones, and is willing to work with Stanleywlchen... since I suspect Stanley has COI issues. His username is the same as the name of the human who is in charge of the trombone-festival he's attempting to create an article for... might be unrelated, but seems more likely he is either a family member or the person themselves.

Anyhoo, I very strongly suspect that Stanley can provide us all the international-trombone-festival-expertise necessary, but to do so without crossing Jimbo's bright-line, they'll need somebody to cast a neutral eye over their suggestions, and verify their sources and such. Stanley seems to edit about once a month, so it will not be a heavy workload; I have a friend from Malaysia that edits twice a day, very strong wikithuisiasm. :-) Would you be interested in being Stanley's conduit, and watchlisting the Talk:SliderAsia page, if it makes it through AfC and into mainspace? Not WP:REQUIRED of course, totally up to you.

Stanley seems friendly and intelligent, and I'm giving them my patent-pending WikiJungle Survival Course which explains WP:COI and WP:RS and WP:TONE and WP:NPOV and WP:NICE and all the rest. Once the schooling is done, though, I'd like Stanley to have some folks that can drop in every couple of months to help with article-maintenance, and questions that WP:TEAHOUSE doesn't handle. Thanks for the reply, appreciate it. p.s. Happy proleptic gregorian increment. <grin> — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]