User talk:Sparkle1: Difference between revisions

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information fails on wider notability. Also cleaning up the main body of the article and claiming that is unconstructive is not viewing the entirety of the editing. There is no way to claim the edits are unconstructive. You may disagree with the edits, but that is a world away from the edits being unconstructive. I strongly suggest assuming good faith before making such claims as editing being unconstructive. such claims could be seem as a battleground mentality and not working in a collaborative manner to further the goals of Wikipeida. The burden is to demonstrate notability. Having a source does not automatically got over the burden of notability. Being reported in a local newspaper does not get over the burden. As for the Labour gentleman there will be no leader as he has stepped down. Also Leader of Wirral Liberal Democrats is not the same as the council leader. Se the disparity between Westminster leaders of political parties and the actual leaders of political parties. Local news papers are not "well-sourced" it appears to be "single-sourcing". Yes they are secondary sources but that does not get over the notability hurdle for these local politicians. Why is there wider notability of these individuals. That is what is missing here. That has not been established. Also the post itself does not have any notability or wider notability established. These positions are not the same as elected mayors or members of legislative bodies. Local Councillors and the associated posts are considered inherently non-notable unless this is demonstrated otherwise. I can cite the Wikipedia policy if desired but I don't want to be accused of Wikilawyering. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for using a warning template, I shouldn't have done as it was somewhat patronising. However, I will point out that reverting your edit is very much within

WP:BRD

; also, the Twinkle template is specifically designed to assume good faith, and I did not intend to imply that you were acting with bad intentions.

Returning to the issue of the article, I agree that most of these individuals will not meet

WP:NNC, individuals do not need to be considered notable to be included in an article. (If you wish to cite the policy you were referring to, I promise I won't accuse you of Wikilawyering! YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

PS This probably isn't the best venue for this discussion, as it excludes any other interested individuals: mind if we take it to the article's talk page? YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You closed your own Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prescot North (ward) nomination, but most of the pages still have the AfD banner that you originally added. You need to follow the rest of the steps in closing AfDs. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Britton v. Turner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit an article, please use the edit summary to explain what you have done and, more importantly, why you have done it. You changed

As requested, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table says column headers should not be used in the middle of tables. This is a MOS guideline and so should be adhered to. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have read that and it is a guide, not a requirement. The section in question specifically states the following.

...editors seem reluctant to split tables, needs more testing and feedback.

I specifically asked for a discussion relating to the 2020 Formula One season page. If such a discussion exists please provide a link to the said discussion.

I have also previously come across incorrect usage of the accessibility guideline, and am reluctant to blindly follow this guideline as it can go over the top and must be used sensibly. There was a move to add double daggers ‡ to every single results page which after discussions was deemed redundant. The discussion in question can be found here. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparkle1. Firstly I'd like to point you to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Undiscussed_moves ("Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again"). I reverted your moves which were from longstanding established names, so I ask that you undo your moves and (if desired) start the requested move process.

However I will first say that there is no convention to not include sponsor names. There is policy to use the

If you still believe that the article names should be changed, as I said, undo your moves and either start a requested move, or if you prefer (or are unfamiliar with the process) I can do that for you. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed I think how do we move this forwards? Sparkle1 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm not sure what you mean by move this forwards? I'm reasonably sure you want me to start the move discussions so I will do that in a couple of hours. A7V2 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the RM soon. You forgot to move back the 2014 article and made a small error with the 2013 one so I'll quickly do those now first. A7V2 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's done now. The request for all 4 articles is on Talk:Shannons Nationals Motor Racing Championships. A7V2 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle1: - Hi, are you still interested in this issue? I was going to mention the RM in a few Wikiproject talk pages to attract more interest but I was waiting first for you to put your arguments so that other users get the full picture (I don't want to misrepresent your views so I've only put my own). If not I might as well withdraw the request as no-one else has participated yet. A7V2 (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit because you seem to have misunderstood the relationship between the lead section and the article narrative. The lead is a summary of the latter and the quotation you removed can be found in the narrative with the required citation. Its inclusion in the lead is acceptable and not considered duplication. If content is cited in the narrative, there is no requirement for a corresponding citation in the lead.

Also, you removed content from the lead without providing an explanation in the edit summary. You flagged the change as minor but a content removal like that is anything but minor. If you read

The section removed and facted is a direct quote being used without quotation marks, therefore the statement is not neutral and does need independent verification. It is quoted later in the article in speech marks, but at the lede section, it is not. this is changing the meaning of the section and not using it correctly. therefore it should be removed from the section as it stands as it is inaccurate. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing incorrect information into articles, as you did with British Medical Association. If you believe the statement you added is correct then you need to use references to support it. In general the BMA and similar organisations are not referred to as a trade union. I have reverted these edits as they appear to suggest bias against these organisations, or in the very least your own point of view. I suggest that in future you discuss any changes like this on the talk page before making them. Thank you, This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing good-faith edits, which update and challenge the inaccuracy of the articles. Please engages in good faith editing and not blanket retention of BMA POV pushing. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt please read this policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Having no source violates the above as there is no way of knowing if the information is true of not. Simple as. No source means no inclusion (except in limited circumstances). Sparkle1 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policies you'll no doubt consult when you find a source describing it as a trade union. Until them, I'm afraid it has to go back to the more widely accepted description. This is Paul (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply retain information and lists with no source Wikipeidia policy is to remove them some of these had been tagged for years, continuing to insist on the retention of information without a source is a violation fo Wikipedia policies and will result in you being reported for disruptive behaviour. The onus is on the person aiming for retention to find sources which conform with the policies of Wikipedia. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So is using poor sources to push an argument. Unfortunately I had to revert the whole thing because it was all tied together, but the unsourced information can soon be removed again, but without the addition of the trade union description. I'll do that now. Going forward, a discussion is open at Talk:British Medical Association. I suggest you contribute to it and wait for consensus on which description we should use. This is Paul (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming the UK government is an unreliable source now. You are claiming an unrelated publication where the article focuses exclusively on the BMA as a trade union is unreliable and you are claiming another trade union talking about the BMA as a trade union is unreliable. You are also insisting on retention of lists and unsourced information. Also, a talk has already been started on there but you know that is a low traffic page and you are hoping to win by lack of input stop violating the rules of Wikipedia to retain the information you like and remove information you dislike. no source information must be removed. Source information must be retained unless there is a very good reason to remove it. The use of three independent sources to verify the claim the BMA are a trade union must not be removed without good cause. there has been non shown. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]