User talk:Sirrontail

Welcome!

Hello, Sirrontail, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Isabell121 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Moment Like This

It's not necessary to mention if [placeholder name] still retains the record; nor the name of the artist who broke the record (if applicable); nor the name of the artist who presently holds the record, if different from the last. The information is relevant to Alexandra Burke and Hallelujah, though not to Leona Lewis and A Moment Like This. There is zero reference to Leona breaking Britney Spears' old record in Baby One More Time (song) for exactly the same reason. It simply has no bearing on the performance and reception of that song. 77.103.88.137 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does the previous holder of record have any "bearing on the performance and reception of that song". The fact that Britney held the record previously has no impact upon the song itself - yet is there because it is extra information about the song and about the record - and for this reason if Britney is mentioned so would Burke. No Leona isn't on BOMT's page, but that has no holding on the issue; what I would see as a wrong on another page doesn't justify the continuation of a wrong on this one.

We can also look at the mention of John Landy on Roger Bannister's page - both Bannister's and Lewis' records were relatively significant and at the very least a mention of the record being broken is necessary and as such should be included. Sirrontail (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we peruse this logic to its necessary conclusion, then we end up noting the last record holder, the next record holder and the current record holder, if different from the last, "because it is extra information about the song and about the record". Digital downloads are increasing year on year and there are better ways to disseminate full information. I believe it is non-controversial to name the previous record holder only, so to avoid exactly this problem and stay on topic. Therefore article "Baby One More Time" mentions briefly whose record was broken; "A Moment Like This" notes whose record was superceded, and on "Hallelujah" we again mention whose record was supplanted. That sound fair? Otherwise we end up with a situation like this (diff), where some pages acknowledge the next record holder but not the last. Britney's page does not mention any other record holders, so I am going to follow their lead and remove excess details until we can agree on matters. Dynablaster (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened this up for wider discussion. Dynablaster (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that should we take it to its logical extremes we would end up listing all record holders, but I am not suggesting that we take it to the logical extremities - I am suggesting we have a situation in which we detail which record was broken, who held it prior and who succeeded as title holder - simply as a manner to give a brief idea of the timeline of said record which can give quite a bit of information regarding varying things. Britney holding the record for around a decade gives us a huge amount of information regarding her relative popularity. If we are to mention a record then surely it is reasonable to wish that information regarding said record is fleshed out - not to the extreme, but to simply to a mid-point in terms of quantity of information.

Why are we using Britney's page as the trendsetter? As I mentioned before why not use Bannister's? Sirrontail (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a precedent on Wikipedia for a brief record holder timeline. Does it apply only to music or other fields and activities, like athletics? If we have a descriptive sentence that notes [placeholder name] (athlete) broke a record in 1947, is it really necessary to say whose record was broken and who superceded that person? I find this disruptive and unnecessary. That is only my opinion. Other editors may also want to comment on this matter (including members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music). Dynablaster (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See I guess that is where we differ - you see it is disruptive, yet I see it as reasonable and short introduction of further information to a reader. But yeah lets hope some more people pop along and give their views. Sirrontail (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland)

The article Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, only sources I could find were small inside publications of the far-left spectrum, but nothing in reliable, independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Fram (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Socialist Alternative (England, Wales and Scotland) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Socialist Alternative (England, Wales and Scotland) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (England, Wales and Scotland) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary escalation, the article should remain in its original form whilst AfD discussions take place Sirrontail (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original recent form was clearly the one that had been appropriately curtailed down of inappropriate sources. In your edit summaries you demand others stick to "wikietiquette" yet you blatantly violated WP:BURDEN by reintroducing inappropriate sources that breached WP:ABOUTSELF on multiple points and also includes basic WP:SYNTH violations where claims on Socialist Alternative's website were being inappropriately propped up by reliable publications that make no mention of the group. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]