User talk:Foot Slogger

Welcome!

Hello, Foot Slogger, 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! Ray^Talk 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English rowers

Hello, Foot Slogger. Thank you for your recent contributions, where you have added the category "English rowers" to a number of articles. If you don't mind, I have some suggestions about how your edits could match Wikipedia's guidelines more closely.

If "English rowers" is appropriate, then the article should not also be in "British rowers", because "English rowers" is a sub-category of "British rowers". (See WP:CAT.)
For "English rowers" to be correct, the article should actually state that the subject is English, and this fact should be verifiable.
Please provide edit summaries to help others understand the intention of your edits.

Thank you! – Wdchk (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the comment above? If you put someone in English rowers, then they should not also be in British rowers. Was that clear? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the two comments above? is another example, again without using an edit summary. This is getting silly. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. - You are still doing it, despite the warnings above. If you keep doing this we shall have to assume that you are being deliberately disruptive, in which case it is likely that you will be blocked from editing and all your edits may be reverted. We don't want to have to do that, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it won't work if one editor thinks that he can ignore all the agreed processes. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to disrupt but to expand information. I never realised categories and subcategories are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foot Slogger (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 May 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

We don't blame you for not knowing originally, but that's why you were told about it earlier today. The problem was that despite being given the information you carried on doing the same, without explanation and without any attempt to discuss the matter here. Glad you understand now. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've caused so much agro I won't continue with changing the rowing categories, so you may as well undo what I've done. Foot Slogger (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel that your edits need to be completely undone. Your original intent was valid, and it's just that more needed to be done than simply adding the "English rowers" category. If you take a look at my edits, such as John Meyrick, you'll see some examples where I have tried to build on your contribution in a collaborative manner. I took into account the principles I outlined at the top of this thread. A word of caution here that many an edit war has erupted over changes between "English" and "British". However I felt it was reasonable and consistent to call the rower "English" where it is verifiable that he was born in England, with the further information that he competed for Great Britain (where applicable). – Wdchk (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reply above. The point about mentioning that he competed for Great Britain is a significant one, as the standards required to be selected to row for Great Britain are in general significantly higher than those for selection to row for England. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is why I never replaced British rower with English rower, mistakenly leaving both in the categories section. I am very well aware how some people find the use of "English" offensive, not least in the British media. Unless of course it is to portray England and the English in a negative way. This is the kind of attitude I am combatting. Thanks for your help David Biddulph & Wdchk, Foot Slogger (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless I doubt I'll be contributing to Wiki again. I've only produced a couple of pages about horses that were immediately trashed by other writers, and now this debacle over rowing. Frankly, it isn't worth the hastle. Foot Slogger (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stacey Tadd

A tag has been placed on Stacey Tadd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. gaidheal1 ^{(talk♫contribs)} 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy, but please give references to verify claims in your articles - see WP:Verifiablity. Articles about living persons will be automatically deleted after ten days if not referenced. I have added a reference here, but you shouldn't leave it to others to tidy up after you: if your articles cite sources, they are much less likely to be deleted. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Charles Bronson (prisoner)

Hello, I'm Keith D. Your recent edit to the page Charles Bronson (prisoner) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Keith D (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Bowen Cooke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Ian Fleming

Hello and thank you for your edit on the above article. Unfortunately I have had to revert it as it goes against WP:OVERLINK which discourages the linking of commonly known words which I consider "English" to be. If you disagree with this, then I would be happy to talk about it on the Fleming talk page. Thanks. -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montagu Stopford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanover Square (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Torvill

Please see my response at Talk:Jayne Torvill. I will restore it to the previous version if there are no further objections. January (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nationality and grammar

If you change the way a person's nationality is described, as you did here, please make sure that the new nationality agrees with the preceding article (e.g. "a British", "an English"). This is a very common error, and it is very visible when it is in the first sentence of the article. Thanks! --Joel7687 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Foot Slogger. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Foot Slogger. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Douglas Reed, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foot Slogger (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I cited an already existing page in the external link previously cited by another contributor, namely www.DouglasReed.co.uk which is a wayback reference. My reference was a pdf of an item written by Douglas Reed himself in which he states that he was born in London. So, by Wikipedia's own standards this must be a reliable source because it had previously been accepted as such. I know some administrators have difficulty with accepting when people are cited as being "English," but nevertheless Douglas Reed was English. I also know his middle name is Launcelot, was given as his first name, and that he was born in Marylebone, London. I believe I saw that in an obituary, in print, but as much information has been purged from the internet I cannot locate it online.[reply]

www.DouglasReed.co.uk is not a reliable source, so you can't use it, even if it's archived on the Waybackmachine. Also, you provided no source for the name "Launcelot". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foot Slogger (talk) Well delete all the comments that cite it as a source then. Having seen that it was already used as a reference within the article, I naturally assumed that anything within it would be acceptable.

I don't see anything in the article that cites that link. Also, it would be helpful if you signed your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Jayjg ^(talk) 12:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foot Slogger (talk) I did use four tilds which is why my handle Foot Slogger is shown before my reply. The link is there at the bottom of the article, so if it isn't a reliable source, as you claim, then delete the link. When is a link not a "reliable source" anyway? The whole website is dedicated to Douglas Reed and the pdf I cited from within that link was written by Douglas Reed himself, in which he stated that he was born in London.

I've removed the link, because I have no idea what the site actually is (nor do you), and it may be a WP:COPYVIO, and violate WP:ELNO. An external link doesn't have to be a reliable source, but something used as a citation (as you were doing) must be a reliable source. Regarding four tildes, you should put them at the end of what you write, and make sure there are exactly four (not three or five). Do what you used to do, for example, in the User talk:Foot Slogger#English rowers section above. Do you see there that everything you wrote there is followed by your userid, and a date and time stamp? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 12 June 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]