User talk:Coaster92: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Coaster92, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Infrogmation (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In particular, please see the information on punctuation at WP:LQ. Thank you. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[1]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coaster. I'd like to see if I could get you to look at the current discussion on the Academy of Achievement Talk page once again; the discussion has progressed since you last weighed in, and I have proposed a possible compromise on the "EduCap" issue. Hope to see you there, at least once the strike is over. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted a follow-up comment on the Academy Talk page; I look forward to continuing the discussion when you have the chance. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. But why a birth certificate? That would mean that we would have to get a birth certificate on every bio on the wikipedia. In her autobiography her grandparents names are given as "von Drachenberg", her own name is given as "von Drachenberg"; there are official US government documents that state her name as "von Drachenberg", so do countless secondary sources, major newspapers, books, her facebook account, IMDb, her interviews, etc, etc. Where does this claim that her name is "Drachenberg" only come from anyway... it just doesn't make any sense. Every other language wikipedia page names her "von Drachenberg". So just because there is one editor trying to prove his POV reason does not apply anymore?--IIIraute (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Academy of Achievement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Mayo (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) 10:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Coaster. Last week I put up a small request on the Academy of Achievement Talk page regarding an arguably missing name from the list of student delegates, with a {{Request edit}} template, but I haven't received any response. Would you mind taking a look at it? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Coaster. As I said back on the Academy page, thanks for the help and I agree about the chronological listing. By the way, your second point raises a question I had in mind, perhaps you can offer some feedback. The Academy is interested in finding out whether a list article for winners of the Golden Plate award would be plausible. In my investigation of existing articles and guidelines, I've found myself weighing WP:NOTCATALOG against WP:NLIST. The third-party sources which might make the case for a standalone article are currently used in the Academy draft itself, while a complete list of winners would have to be sourced back to the Academy itself; many articles exist identifying individual winners (often in their obits) but there is no accounting for all winners besides the Academy's own website. Of course, the same appears to be true of list articles associated with the Oscars, for example List of Best Actor winners by age. Any feedback you might have would be very welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coaster92. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 17:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi Coaster92,

Could you possibly re-open this DR? As the discussion on the talk page is going no where with the DR results being ignored. Also the objecting parties seem to change their reasoning every time a valid rationale point for change is made. Also despite the ongoing discussion this edit was made [2] by User:One Night In Hackney based on this reasoning [3] which is a very inflammatory action. Gravyring (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Concerns are that the page has been riddled with POV that the article is not very coherent or consistent. 1. The term 'International' was removed with out consensus [4]. If you can see a consensus here, then Ill ignore this. The same old argument that NI is not a country, hence NI can not have an international border blah blah blah, yet in the article this exists the border. 2. United Kingdom or UK is short for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so I'm at odds as to why NI can not be mentioned in the location field. 3. The location field does allow for NI in the location field, contrary to BJmullans interpretation of the Infobox. NI does not need to be a country, for Northern Ireland to be a location. Its ridiculous. I do not see why NI can not be used in the location field as NI-ROI border. 4. MY suggestion to pipe NI-ROI border text to ROI-UK border page was also blocked yet pipe from point 1 exists. Its a contradiction. 5. The opposition argument is very weak. 6. Opposition argument and edit made without consensus [5].

There are users who are clearly pushing some sort of POV.Gravyring (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster, thanks for looking into this but it needs more that an impartial opinion. Page obviously is completely inconsistent with years of edit warring and pov pushing. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any way to force someone to discuss a change, nor do they have to explain themselves when they make a revert. The objections so far have been like comparing apples with pears. In the [6] BJmullan suggested that I wanted to remove the pipelink from the page, but no where on the Carlingford Talk Page did I suggest that. A complete fabrication, yet that was his objection. All your advice is welcome.Gravyring (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of other pages using the same template as Carlingford Lough [7], [8], [9], [10]. These loughs are all in Northern Ireland, and all reference Northern Ireland in the Location field. Any argument that suggests that Northern Ireland can not be used in this field, is just pure POV pushing.Gravyring (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with these articles are the loughs do not border a sovereign state. Coaster92 you might be interested in this edit by Gravyring which was made without any consensus whatsoever. This editor talks about other's POV but all he seems to be interested in is pushing his own. I think you are on a hiding to nothing... Bjmullan (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bjmullan, whether a lough borders a sovereign state is irrelevant if it is inconsistent with the article content and not the most specific term to use. If you want to be more vague, you could say that the lough is in Western Europe. Your argument that Northern Ireland could not be used in the location field was false as I've shown a number of pages using the same template and using 'Northern Ireland' as the location. This edit was made by One Night in Hackney [11] and you supported this edit [12] even though the edit was made without consensus, so please dont spew hypocrisy. My edit was made with support from HackneyHound and Mabuska and was consistent with text, infobox and map. Can you please answer these questions [13]? Gravyring (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coaster for your comments. I dare say that those will probably be ignored. For lack of a good argument, those who oppose seem to go silent, but then when you make an edit they come out of hiding again. Its ashame that this is what wiki is like, but thanks again.Gravyring (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster, the RFC seems to have hit a wall. The users who oppose the suggestion seem to be reasoning not relevant to the change. Can you advise what is the next step? How do you get around POV like this?Gravyring (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Coaster. I hope I'm not a bother, but I'm writing to check in with you about the proposed List of Golden Plate awardees drafts. As I replied on my Talk page earlier in the week, of course I do mean for only one to be used, though I wanted to present some different options. If you think the "chronological" is ready to post, would you be willing to move it to the mainspace? Relatedly, I've also got a couple of minor additional suggestions for the Academy of Achievement article I'm going to post over there in a moment. If you want to review those, feel free, though I'm going to put a {{Request edit}} tag on it as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have on for deletion. The nominated article is Plummer v. State.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plummer v. State. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You are welcome to edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Coaster. Since you asked for a ping, I'm all too happy to supply one—two, actually. I've just posted a pair of responses, first on the Academy Talk page about the Foundation's support, and on my Talk page about the Golden Plate list, with a small request. Meantime, thanks so much for your help with both. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just replied on my Talk page re: the hatnote. WWB Too (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed an error of my own on the Golden Plate list article: Barbra Streisand's name is misspelled on the list; I accidentally used the more common spelling of "Barbara", which is wrong in this case. Seems silly to ask you about it when it's so obviously non-controversial an edit, but better safe than sorry, I figure. Also, have you had a chance to consider the hatnote and orphan tag removal? Let me know when you have a moment. Best, WWB Too (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your note: thanks for taking care of all those changes! Plus I've seen your reply on the Academy Talk page. I'll think about it over the weekend, and should have some thoughts for you Monday. Meantime, I hope you have a great weekend. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for all of your assistance with the Academy of Achievement and Golden Plate articles! You've been extraordinarily helpful. WWB Too (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contribution to BMW R1100GS discussion. Since your contribution no new evidence has been presented by Dennis Bratland (or others) to show that the section on Neil Peart's book should remain on the motorbike article page.

However, since then I have started to receive advisories from the user Dennis Bratland regarding my supposed 'personal attacks' on him. It seems like a tactic to divert from the discussion of discredited evidence/sources. (And on the BMW R1100GS article 'talk' page, the codes WP:OWN and WP:SNOW where thrown about without any justification)

Also, now this - Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban - which is an attempt by user Dennis Bratland to ban the whole topic!

As you have already shown your objectivity and distance from these subjects, could I suggest your 'fresh perspective' input on this would be a great help. I wouldn't want to see the noticeboard discussion deleted because of false accusations. Thanks.
Rivercard (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]