User talk:Silas Stoat

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Silas Stoat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobitism

Hi Silas Unfortunately there is no discussion on the talk page. The last edit was in February. If you would like to start it then I will be quite happy to contribute. In the meantime, I'll just remove the confusing reference to primary seats in particular parts of the world. Can't we just say where the primary seats are? Crispness (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative words for British

Hi Silas, I see you've reverted me edit. Perhaps I misunderstand the context of the sentence. Is the sentence suggesting that; Historically, anybody from Great Britain or Ireland or any of the crown dependencies and islands (but especially the Ireland part) implied a connection with "British"???? Cos I would have a problem with this sentence in that context. But am I misunderstanding it? --Bardcom (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Let me have a think about it (and get to bed!). Can we pick this up tomorrow? Thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Good night. :-) --Bardcom (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with nominating an article for deletion. I have this one in mind: Immigrant language. Thanks.

Silas Stoat (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silas Stoat, I'll do this for you, but I will need a nomination reason. Preferably based on the deletion policy or the notability guideline(s). Make sure to read WP:BEFORE. Please notify me at User talk:ToBeFree. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: You may like to do the technical part yourself too, relatively easily, by enabling "Twinkle" in your Wikipedia preferences, section "Gadgets". Then click "TW" at the top of the page and select "XFD" from the menu. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd simply convert the page to a redirect and see what happens, with Immigration and Minority language being the two obvious candidates for the target. I wouldn't expect any objections seeing how this has been tagged with {{unr}} for 3 years. 78.28.54.83 (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TBF and 78. Thanks for the advice. I've set Twinkle, so I'll have a play around with it generally. However, 78's suggestion seems like a good one - do you concur with this approach, TBF? Thanks, Silas Stoat (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it to Immigration. That seemed the most appropriate article. Silas Stoat (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk pages

Please do not soapbox about how unfair or biased admins are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. It was a relevant comment about the article. Silas Stoat (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing numerals and words?

When comparable quantities are used in a sentence, it's better to use either words or numerals for both quantities. In the articles Asphondyliini‎ and Saha Airlines, it looks to me like the quantities would be considered "comparable quantities". Either way, it's no big deal -- I just thought I'd mention it. Bob Webster (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Edibobb:Hi Bob. Thanks. I must admit I hadn't spotted that exception in the MOS. I'll adopt the standard from now on. Cheers. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DOTY guidelines

Yes. See Wikipedia:Days of the year: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". This requirement was introduced middle of last year for DOTY but hasn't yet been extended to Year and Year in Topic pages. I think it will probably come, but for now I'm concentrating on stemming the tide of new entries. Deb (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could. I could also have tagged the hundreds of other uncited entries, but instead I've been going through the DOTY articles systematically, adding references where possible. January 1 is pretty much done now; feel free to assist with the task. Deb (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "The danger with removing them 'on the spot' is that they could be lost for ever from the listings." I don't understand your reasoning there. Do you mean that all new entries deserve to be included, and are in some way better than those that are currently not included? Or do you perhaps think that all people born on a specific date should be included - which would make the list impossibly long? I would certainly like to see a reduction in (for example) the number of footballers born in the 1990s who are included at the expense of historical figures, scientists, etc, but I don't see how removing them from DOTY articles means they could be "lost for ever". Deb (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've put your finger on the difficulty. It isn't my role to judge whether someone is "worthy" of mention in the list. There is a working group attempting to do that for the Year articles (which are an even bigger problem, in my opinion), but nothing for DOTY yet. Deb (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let it bother you

He's angry like that all the time. Just ignore it. E Eng 20:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng:Hi EEng. Yes, He does seem to be that way inclined. No need for it really. No worries. Thanks for getting in touch. Silas Stoat (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at June 22, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As Deb noted above, Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details: content guideline, the style guide or the edit notice on that page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: Add it yourself. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - that's how it works. The WP:BURDEN is on you as someone who adds the material. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the material is no longer there; you've deleted it, so the policy doesn't now apply - there's no entry for it to apply to. Yet another mad Wikipedia policy - requiring sources for items in an index, because that's all those lists are. And not only that, deleting new entries rather than tagging them, and pissing off editors all over the place as a result. I might get around to copying these comments, or something similar, to the relevant discussion, but in the mean time, and like an increasing number of other editors, I won't bother with those pages any more. Silas Stoat (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Windrush Day moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Windrush Day, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hi DGG, I added some more sources, probably way more than enough, but in my opinion the original sources were fine for such a stub containing, for the moment, limited information. Actually - and I don't mean any offence here - but when you come across articles such as this, why not just add sources yourself, especially when it's a subject that's easy to reference? This is supposed to be a collegiate editing project, after all. It's a bit like when I added this article to the June 22 index article, and someone removed it rather than add a source, which was already present in the article and could have been copied very quickly. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for putting in the year of birth for Louise Lear. Vorbee (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Windrush Day concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Windrush Day, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]