User talk:Sliggy

For accidentally deleting your vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorchester Town footballers while undoing another person's edit - that was quite careless of me. Apologies. Qwghlm 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day,

Earlier this week you tagged the Bryan Hoffa article with a note that says:

"This article does not cite its references or sources."

Could you please provide examples of items that would satisfy the requirement of the note? Folajimi^(talk)

"Digging a bit further ... which is a positive."

Well, how does that relate to the state of the tag at issue here??? Folajimi 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)^(talk)[reply]

Does the MySpace page provide sufficient evidence for removal of the tag? Folajimi 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)^(talk)[reply]

Do AMG listings qualify as sufficient evidence? Folajimi 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)^(talk)[reply]

That's all I've got. As for the homonym, I believe AMG goofed-up. Folajimi 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)^(talk)[reply]

My suspicion is that tinyurl links are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. As such, I need to find out how a clean URL is obtained for AMG pages... Folajimi 02:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)^(talk)[reply]

I changed the tinyurl link to what it points to because otherwise it wasn't letting me save an edit in another part of the page. Sorry if it is not the correct link. Flagboy 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Interesting map links you posted - I wasn't aware of them. I have a gut-feeling this article is actually correct but it's completely unverifiable at present and should be deleted unless someone can come up with printed sources. Dlyons493 Talk 01:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I "fixed" the

Thank you for the compliment. Due to what I learned looking him up, I feel obliged to upgrade his

wife's page, too. Oi, this is starting to feel like work. lol--SVTCobra 02:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I won't quibble with your deletion of the information on the move to the new building, since I think information about the move is not particularly encyclopedic. However, I don't think stating that that the DI is moving into a new Illini Media building that is nearly complete falls under "possible future events & speculation upon them". No part of that is really speculative. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It works for me. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sliggy, how you doing? First of all, let me thank you for the rephrasing of the aritcle which I wrote. You did a damn good job and made it even better. Second, I removed the tag which you posted. You see,Sandoval's Awards and Recognition were printed in the newspaper which I cited. There are times when a book or a paper contain certain information that you may not find in the internet yet and therefore the reference is cited. Now, I know that you will not doubt me because as you can see in my User Page I'm a repected member in the comunity. Again, I'm impressed with your work and I believe that you are an asset to the Wiki project. Take care, Tony the Marine 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Took your advice, Cheers Tony the Marine 17:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state in talk:Margaret Thatcher (about 1983 election result):

The observable, NPOV electoral fact is that the Alliance split the left and not the right.

No it isn't. Opinion polls from the time indicate that Alliance voters were evenly divided between the other two main parties as their second choice. Thus the Alliance cannot be assumed to be part of a "left" bloc alongside Labour, and you cannot assume that if the two groupings fought had the election together then all Labour and (especially) Alliance voters would have voted for that bloc.

Combined with first past the post and this is another reason for the landslide. Note that the Alliance got ~24% of the vote in 1983, Labour ~27%, but the Conservatives remained at roughly the same as 1979 at ~43%

You can't infer anything from this. You seem to be assuming that the shift in vote was a single bloc, all in the same direction, i.e. that the swing in votes was due simply to a large group of ex-Labour voters shifting en masse to the Alliance, with no other shift in vote. It was not that simple, and in psephology you can never assume that things are that simple. If you want to present that as what happened, you need evidence. It could equally have been (and this probably did happen) that many voters switched from Conservative to Alliance, and others switched from Labour to the Conservatives.

I have changed the main entry to state simply that the split opposition in 1983 enabled the Conservatives to win on 43% of the vote, which is all that can be inferred from the raw national results without delving into detailed psephological analyses. This does not mean that the Conservatives would not have won if the opposition had not been split: if Alliance voters were evenly divided between Tories and Labour in terms of second preferene then the Tories would have won on over 50% had the Alliance not existed. Flagboy 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Sliggy,

I noticed you left a comment in the recent deaths log that "African-American" was not a nationality, and I wanted to discuss this with you. I am an American of color who doesn't use that term as a self-descriptor, in part because I am multiracial. However, in certain contexts, "African-American" is entirely appropriate as a quasi-nationality (or ethnic) descriptor. Black figures of the American Civil Rights Movement, and their subsequent admirers, sometimes feel a just disenchantment with their "nation"; descendents of slaves, they know that their physical birthplace is the historical result of a great crime against humanity, the African slave trade. These blacks are no longer wholly African, to be sure, and have many affinities with their birthland, especially now that the tensions of racial hatred are somewhat eased; however, the fact remains that "American" is not their sole identity -- unlike America's "pioneers", the ancestors of most black Americans did not come to the continent willingly. To distinguish themselves, and claim a limited share of the culture heritage of which they were criminal deprived, some black Americans choose to self-identify as "African-American." This choice is grounded in painful historical truths, and should be respected. I don't wish to make a fuss over this, but I wanted you to understand why "African-American" is an important self-desciptor for some people, and appropriate, even in small obituaries, where the deceased is known to have so identified himself or herself.

I am presently attempting a wiki-vacation, so I will sign informally; but I will monitor your talk page, should you wish to discuss this further. Best wishes, Xoloz

• C'mon, how is Eton not leading?! That is not POV, its a statement of fact. Would you be comfortable with "revered" instead? There is merit to noting that he had a privileged education, which someone reading the article say from America might not realise was constituted by Eton and Brasenose. Jdcooper 03:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I dunno, it just strikes me that we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. I know "leading" is kind of a wooly term, but everyone would know what it means, and everyone who has heard of it would probably agree? Its not so important that I'm going to get arsy over it! But I just think that sometimes POV is ok if its everyone's POV.. Jdcooper 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Both the Polish and German Wikipedia offer evidence for this. The Polish Wikipedia merely states it in pl:Teresa Ciepły, but the German Wikipedia article on the 1962 European Championships has a full medal table and times of the top 3 finishers. See here: [1].

I also found this compendium of results on the web when searching for "Teresa Cieply 100 m" in Google: [2]. Quoting from "1962 Beograd" ("Beograd" must be "Belgrade" in Finnish):

      WOMEN
           
      100 m
       1 Dorothy Hyman      GBR      11,3
       2 Jutta Heine        FRG      11,3
       3 Teresa Ciepla      POL      11,4
       4 Daphne Arden       GBR      11,5
       5 Hannelore Raepke   GDR      11,6
       6 Elzbieta Szyroka   POL      11,8

I hope this is satisfactory. I will now undo your deletions of this finish in Teresa Ciepły (a simple revert is impossible as there have been other edits since). -- Mareklug ^talk 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I included a more reliable reference to her bronze in 1962 in the article. Sliggy 16:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You regard the following statement as POV and superlative:

Although more politically mixed, these too have drifted to the Tories since the implementation of former Westminster Council leader

Why? Buidling Stable Communities is a matter of public record as are the political intentions which lay behind it; the dramatic political changes it helped foster in wards like Bayswater and Churchill are clearly visible in changes in party share of the vote from 1986-1994 (http://www.election.demon.co.uk/wcc/wcc.html) a period when they Conservative share of the vote in almost all London Boroughs went into steep decline. And, short of, the complete annihilation of the British Conservative Party or a split in the English right a la the Canadian Tory meltdown, there is no prospect of CLW being lost by the Tories.

I can, of course, litter the article with references but I'd rather use a bit of common sense and keep the flow of the article and leave the reference war to university students with too much time on their hands.

Gerry Lynch 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have responded on the talk page of Cities of London and Westminster, where this message was also posted, so as to have the most open discussion possible. Sliggy 16:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making unnecessary decapitalizations to the article La Salle College. In the article, colony and war refers directly to Colony of Hong Kong and World War II. They are short-forms for the proper nouns, and should also be capitalized. Deryck C. 02:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed when editing a page that uses Template:MedalTopEAA (European track and field (athletics) championships medal table top) that Template:MedalGold, Template:MedalSilver, and Template:MedalBronze have the undesirable side-effect of adding the page to an olympic medal category.

So I created new templates just for use in non-olympic contexts: Template:MedalGoldGeneric, Template:MedalSilverGeneric, and Template:MedalBronzeGeneric which don't do any adding to categories.

I went ahead and updated all the pages affected by this that I found linking to Template:MedalTopEAA, but I don't know about other non-olympic medal table contexts.

(This pertains to your edit on Teresa Ciepły when you added the Template:MedalTopEAA and its medal templates.) -- Mareklug ^talk 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop a "thanks" on behalf of Jiff78 for the Glassesdirect rewrite (just in cast he doesn't beat me to it). I think there may have been a teensy-weensy spam motive involved initially, but I also think Jiff78 was making an honest effort, as well. Nice job on the rewrite, I've changed my vote to keep --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a thank you on the deletion page, it took me a little longer to find this page. I told you I was new to Wikipedia :) Thank you again Sliggy & Bugwit for you help in this I really appreciate it. I think the reason the article looked spammy was possibly because I was looking at some of the other company articles when writing it, and so though it would be acceptable. It's a great shame not all the editors are as thoughtful as you both. Cheers.Jiff78 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Bauhinia Bowl problem: LSC had won Bauhinia Bown only 21 times, and 2006 championship is undecided up till the time being. Saying that LSC had won Bauhinia Bown 24 times and that she has already won the 2006 championship is strict vandalism. Next time when you see this just revert without hesitation with an "RVV" summary. --Deryck C. 06:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: See what you've reverted TO, instead of from, and you'll understand. Somebody, probably a skillful vandalist, added a few years to the trophy list. --Deryck C. 04:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd. Midgley 20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to have a go at a new diagram, and will try to sketch some creatures on Saturday with the aim of scanning them and sticking them on a gif as discussed at Image talk:41525972 fish transition 416.gif. Let me know if Nature are likely to give clearance making this redundant, and if a horizontal approach will suit ok. ...dave souza, talk 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Life
		Hereby I would like to award Sliggy with this Barnstar of Life for his sharp argument shown in the edition of La Salle College. Deryck C. 08:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I don't know where are you from, but your neutral comment really made the situation a lot better. --Deryck C. 08:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. My understanding was that there was deletion vandalism going on, but when I looked more closely, it turned out the bio of Paul Lau was somewhat misplaced in the article. It seems that Deryck Chan felt it should be included, but large parts of the biography are neither notable nor directly relevant to La Salle. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please note that you don't need to write [[Egypt|Egyptian]] (as you did in

Actually, i haven't quite put it up yet as i have been busy but will soon. Simply south 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit on the late side but i am putting it up for WP:RM now. Simply south 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete change. Is it okay if i put this as a redirect to SWML? Simply south 15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Are we meant to follow this logic and use thrice winner? If a person can two-time another person, they can three- and four-time somebody (and there isn't another word for four-time in the sequence). To me it seems a bit lame to not use two-time because someone can't look past its dating connotation. - Dudesleeper 13:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the word for four-time is tetrice. W guice 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Der!, I was too overzealous, wasn;t thinking, apologies, heheh. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - sorry, I was doing a rewrite at the same time as you, it would seem. I think I have covered pretty much the same things as you (not surprising, given identical sources) but please feel free to put your text back, if you prefer. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not meant to be an encyclopedia with exact details only. Instead, it serves as a place where people can read and know more about something, a conservatory of general knowledge. Therefore, as long as the details are accurate and neutrally written, they deserve to stay. This applies to the case of the building details in La Salle College. Thanks.

One more question: are you from Hong Kong? --Deryck C. 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply would be: Yes, they are supposed to become infinitely long, provided that the new details are correct, accurate and concise. The articles grow longer and longer, and finally split. That's the way Wikipedia grows. --Deryck C. 15:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Donna Edwards, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Edwards. Marylandstater 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you.[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Eric A Ash.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here
  .

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Eric A Ash3.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here
  .

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current