Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:04, 1 April 2009

Welcome!

Hello Hippo43, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jordan's vertical leap

Sorry about that. I had restored that based on a secondhand reference from User:OCEAN...but I only put the source in the edit summary (as reported in Tim S. Grover's book "Jump Attack" per User:OCEAN)), which had long since scrolled off the history.

So, do you feel that is a valid source for the information? --Syrthiss 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call - I don't have a copy myself, but I intended to check that book - if anyone, Grover should know. Being cynical, he has a vested interest in talking up Jordan's vertical, but we're unlikely to find a better source. Hippo43 19:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

I've reverted Jacrosse's edits to Neoconservatism in the United States for the ninth time and protected the article. I also filed a request for comment on the edit conflict. He seems to have an aversion to discussing the concerns that you, I, Jmabel, and TDC raised on the talk page. What do you think can be done to bring him around? —thames 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow reply - I have no idea what to do with someone like that, other than somehow getting rid of them. Seems able to ruin an article single-handedly and I just don't have the time to watch out for it.Hippo43 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Park

Hi, there. I reverted your edits as they appeared to be leading the reader to believe that Celtic Park is 5 star by giving more bias to one line on the UEFA news site. Whilst I would generally agree that the UEFA site is a better source for this type of information than the other link provided. The problem with the UEFA link is that at the time of publication the information was definitely incorrect.

 - Celtic state that they need to do work to make their stadium 5 star.

- Hampdens official site mentions Ibrox and Hampden as being 5 star. - Evening Times article published after UEFA news article says Celtic were planning to do work. All of this, especially the first link, would confirm that Celtic Park was not a 5star stadium when the UEFA article was published, therefore it is inaccurate. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of your sources carry much weight - an Evening Times article dated 2003 about Celtic's plans for the next year and a POV piece about Hampden are hardly reputable sources. While you may well be correct, until someone provides a genuine UEFA source for this, it will remain unresolved.

However, you removed a paragraph of detail about Celtic Park which had nothing to do with the 5-star issue, and gave no explanation of either change in your edit summary. Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. Hippo43 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star. As for the source about Hampden, it comes from the official site for Hampden, Scotlands national stadium, it obviously will talk up its own facilities this does not make it POV, unless you are claiming that the SFA have a conspiracy to lead people to believe that Celtic park is not 5star? --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs )

You wrote:- "Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. ", I only reverted your biased POV edits. You are missing the point of Misplaced Pages, anyone can edit it, you do not own articles. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My edits were neither biased or POV - I have frequently stated that I want to get to the bottom of this with a current, reliable source, and that you may well be correct. Hampden's official website is clearly POV - it is intended to promote Hampden, contains obvious hype, and cannot be relied upon to provide accurate info on other stadia.

Giving no sources or edit summaries for your contributions on these sorts of topics can cause edit wars which can make this encyclopedia pretty useless. You removed a paragraph of info on the various parts of the stadium that had nothing to do with 5-star status, presumably because you didn't check everything that had been added after the edit that you disagreed with. I do understand the point of wikipedia - I don't claim to own articles, or my own contribution to them, but you have been arbitrarily removing people's work without explanation, which is definitely not the point. I only asked you (politely) to follow protocol here and use courtesy if you are editing my (or anyone else's) work.

Your first sentence above - "I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star." - doesn't make much sense. Can you clarify what you mean?Hippo43 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not view your edits as POV or biased, however I consider your changes that I reverted here: were very biased and were deliberately misleading, reading the talk page would indicate that there were issues surrounding the UEFA magazine article. I really don't understand what your issue is about me accidently removing your other information, as you yourself added it back in 17 hours after it was accidently removed and I have left it in the article for what is now close on 2 weeks. You are wrong about the official Hampden site, unless you are paranoid and think that there is a conspiracy at the SFA to mislead people into thinking that Glasgow only has two 5star stadia. Obviously websites such as the official one about Hampden can be self promoting, but I do not think that any reasonable person would dispute the information given in a specific official site such as this one, unless it can be proven to be incorrect. Your attempt to discredit an official source as being POV is laughable.

You say: "Giving no sources or edit summaries for your contributions on these sorts of topics can cause edit wars which can make this encyclopedia pretty useless.", which seems a very strange accusation from you who obviously makes POV edits. Where have I not given sources, my only edit was to remove your POV and an accidental deletion of your content which you added back in unchallenged two weeks ago? You then state: "but you have been arbitrarily removing people's work without explanation", I have removed your POV from this article, where else has this alleged misconduct occurred, or are you simply making it up?

As for your question about the article from Celtic. The article from Celtic has a later date than the UEFA magazine article. The UEFA article says Celtic Park is a 5star stadium. The article from Celtic confirms that it is not 5star and that work needs to be done to attain that standard. These two articles prove that the earlier UEFA one was inaccurate. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My issue with you removing my other edits is that you seem to have an attitude about me not knowing what "the point of wikipedia is" - I simply asked you to be careful about what you remove and give explanations for it. I note you have since edited the Donald Findlay article several times without explanation, so I'm obviously not making it up. Above, you wrote that I "obviously make POV edits" - which ones do you mean? You say you found my edits "deliberately misleading" but don't say why.

As for your conspiracy theory, I haven't said any such thing about the Hampden site - I said simply that its role is to promote Hampden, and not to give accurate info on any other stadia. The tone of the article is clearly promoting Hampden, and so is essentially an advert for Hampden, not a site which can be relied upon for accurate, up-to-date info on other facilities in Glasgow.

As for the Celtic report from 2003, it is clearly now out of date - the 2004 report from Celtic (http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2004_Report.pdf) also mentions work on stadium improvement, so I figure we need an up-to-date source from somewhere to confirm the status either way. Do you know of a source from the last 2 years which confirms the status of Celtic Park now? Again, you may be right, but arguing over sources from 2003 doesn't sort this out one way or the other.Hippo43 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No you suggested that I have a habit of removing information. You deliberately focused on the Donald Findlay article as you saw that I had made changes to it, then accuse me of changing information in it, when all I was doing was reverting your slightly controversial partizan edits. The only thing I can say about Celtic park is it was definetely not 5star in 2003, if you can find any new information change it. Good luck in finding it.--Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Celtic-first British team

• I've restored your edit on Celtic FC- I agree that the fact it was the first British team to win should be mentioned. Northern European is too vague. Astrotrain 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• What is vague about Northern European - in fact it is further clarified by stating the countries that had teams that had won it before. Astro you are already under investigation for your conduct, do not try and drag other people into your POV disputes.--Vintagekits 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rangers' signing policy

Hi Hippo43. I made reference to your excellent contributions on this subject at Talk:Graeme Souness recently. The current thread is at Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Signing_policy. Thanks if you are able to help. --Guinnog 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keele

Hi, I see you've contributed to the Keele University article a few times. Assuming you're alumni you may be interested in this: Template:User Keele Grunners (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fettes

When the press, and, indeed, Tatler's School Guide, refer to Fettes as the "Eton of the North" they're complementing the school's exceedingly strong reputation. This is not something to shy away from. Therefore, even if you didn't attend Fettes, as a proud Scotsman, you should be flattered that our country hosts one of the finest Public Schools in the UK. As far as I see it, who are you to decide what Fettes post on their page? You clearly have no attachment to the school, only resentment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Western Province (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See reply here - Talk:Fettes_College#.27Eton_of_the_North.27_.26_other_schools hippo43 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Elite Stadia

If you'd care to update the article in question with some reliable sources which back up your changes to Ibrox Stadium's classification (namely, the complete removal of such info), that would be great. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The existing sources at UEFA_elite_stadium look solid to me. The old 4- and 5-star classification doesn't exist any more, so I removed the out of date material, making the Ibrox article more accurate. To the best of my knowledge, Ibrox has not been assessed as an Elite stadium - if someone thinks it has, they will no doubt be able to provide a source confirming that.hippo43 (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see, nobody has provided any confirmation of any list UEFA maintains - only a list of criteria. Insofar as a simple change of the words "five star" to "Elite" would apparently have updated the information without removing it, I don't see why removal was the best answer, unless there's reason to believe that UEFA maintains a list of certified stadia which isn't currently cited anywhere on the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware (I may be wrong) UEFA will classify a stadium if the club applies to have their stadium inspected. I have never been able to find an authoritative list of stadia from UEFA based on either rating system. I haven't compared the new criteria for Elite with the old 5-star criteria in detail. I would not expect them to be the same as UEFA now has 3, not 2, classifications.

In any case, using the new criteria to infer that a stadium which was previously 5-star is now Elite would be original research, so not cool. If I find a source which confirms the current status of Ibrox I'll amend the article. hippo43 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Thabo Mbeki appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. For ridiculous over tagging. Verbal chat 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"non-neutral point of view"? What are you talking about? If you object to specific tags, then find sources or re-write the material. The article is a mess, and you've done nothing to help improve it. hippo43 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Peppering the article with tags, many of which were unjustified (as references followed very soon after) didn't seem to help. Verbal chat 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mizuno Corp.

Hi, you have recently removed a section from Mizuno Corp. I agree that much of the list is probably non notable, and there is no doubt is was random, but some of it is notable and could be salvaged. Perhaps inserting a {{cleanup}} tag would be better? bigissue (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I considered tagging it or attempting to clean it up myself, but figured it was better to remove it on 3 grounds - it was a miscellaneous list of trivia (some athletes, some events), it was completely unreferenced, and very little of it was notable. If there's a way to get the most notable bits of it back into the article, and referenced, I'm happy to help. hippo43 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jordan #5

Just out of curiosity, when exactly did Michael Jordan wear #5? The Pan-American Games? Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pan-American Games, I think, but I don't know for sure. This shows the top of the number hippo43 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This page ] doesn't list jeresy numbers, but Jordan appears 2nd in the team list, which would normally be #5. The photo isn't great, but looks like Jordan is wearing 5.hippo43 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a five. Thanks for the reply! Zagalejo^^^ 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Overtagging Jordan

Hello Hippo43, don't take it as ofensive, I am not going to disrupt your work on the Michael Jordan's article, as I am personally interested in making it better, too. It's just the quest for perfection, you see. I don't know anything at all about the NBA, I've just tagged all sentenced that seemed POV-ed for me. However, I've felt bold enough to restore some of the {{citation needed}} templates you've removed. I hope that won't harm the article and you (or other Wikipedians) will find proper sources for the yet-untagged sentences. This is 2 AM in Poland, so I am not going to edit the article in a couple of hours—feel free to edit it the way you like. I'll have a look at it in the morning. Have a good day (you're out of the UTC, I take it?) :-) Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Rangers F.C.

I was going to warn you for 3rr and then saw you had just come off a block for it and gone straight back to edit-warring. Your next block is likely to be for longer should you continue. Please don't edit-war but instead abide by consensus. Thanks. --John (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but maybe you are over-reacting. This is hardly an edit war - minor edit battle perhaps? This discussion belongs at the article talk page, and should be based on policy. I notice you haven't discussed any in relation to the content itself. hippo43 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've expressed an opinion on the article talk about the content, and I am expressing the opinion here regarding your editing behavior, that if you continue you are certain to be the subject of an escalated block, probably 48 or 72 hours. Before restoring the info again, consider whether that would be worth it. If you do you will almost certainly see that it is not. --John (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, perhaps discuss the content with reference to policy, rather than simply 'X is spot on', or reverting with no edit summary? --hippo43 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy is WP:EDITWAR. Whether you're right or not regarding the content, it is not your prerogative to continually reinsert it against consensus. If you cannot obtain consensus for whatever reason, it is up to you to take the issue to a wider forum, seek a third opinion, or otherwise seek to work with others to change their minds. Attempting to bludgeon users into accepting your version through continually reinserting it or demanding some proofs that you are wrong won't work. I would also strongly advise you to read Misplaced Pages:Indentation, an essay on thread etiquette - your habit of starting replies without any indentation makes it very difficult to see where the separate threads of a conversation are, and isn't helping your cause. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't continually reinserted it against consensus, at least recently. I asked for compromise suggestions, then followed those of two editors who disagreed with me, producing multiple sources simply to show the number of sources which confirm my point. --15:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Hello, Hippo. I believe you have to make a neutral statement on the request for comment on the section concerned. If you were already going to do so then ignore this message. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Neutral statement? Not sure that I'm the man for the job! I'll give it a shot. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe! I'm sure you'll give it a good go. Jack forbes (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm probably going to piss you off now. :) As`you requested the comment I think it would be better to elaborate on the statement to allow those coming in cold to get a good idea of the opposing views and reasons for those views. Two or three lines would normally suffice. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain

The existing position on this article was that geography followed politics. A proposal to reverse them DID NOT achieve consensus and the default position until consensus is reached is for geography to come first. Please make your case on the talk page rather than simply asserting a position that you know to be controversial. --Snowded (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rugger

Not sure that it can be said not to be current. It is rare in the UK except in the phrase "rugger bugger" but the Yanks seem to use "rugger" and even use it to mean "rugby player" as well.

It is also true what Haldraper said about rugby league being known as "rugby" in the North of England though I think your edit is okay because it wouldn't be wrong to call rugby union "rugby" even in the North.GordyB (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really disputing that 'rugger' is used, but it's pretty rare now - outside the US it is usually a term of parody. AFAIK the American usage is more for the people than the sport, though I could be wrong. It should be in there somewhere, but I don't think it belongs in the lead - it's not one of the most notable things we could say about the sport. 'Rah rah' is probably more widely used these days than 'rugger', among the sport's detractors.

You're right, as is Haldraper, that league is known as just rugby in some parts, but union is widely called rugby, even in those areas where league is popular. For example, in Wigan people may well say 'I'm going to the rugby', meaning league, but union fans in the same area don't say 'I'm going to the rugby union'.

I think "Rugby union is often referred to as simply rugby" is general enough for the lead, and without getting into citations and arguments over what names are used for each in different areas. This certainly isn't league-bashing on my part. --hippo43 (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

I understand you are trying to help on the Siena College article, but I do question your edit taking out mention that there is a dispute as to the location of the college. There is a dispute and I would like it if you talked to me about your opinions or use the discussion page of the article. While you are right as to the MAILING address of the college this is due to the fact that the actual ZIP code that Siena College resides in (Newtonville) is one of those post offices that has PO Boxes ONLY and does not deliver mail. Residents and businesses that would like home delivery must ask the Loudonville Post Office for delivery, and therefore must use their ZIP code and name for home delivery, but can not get a PO box at the Loudonville PO. You can, and there are probably many instances of this, have a location that has home delivery inbetween two locations that have only PO Boxes that use Newtonville addressed. The Newtonville Park is directly across the street from the college, the Newtonville Post Office is about 100 yards up the street (probably considerably less), and the Newtonville Church(Methodist I think) is less than a 1/4 mile up the road. There is the Newton Plaza and Newton Plaza II up the road, and many businesses that use the Newton name, and the Pruyn House, a historical museum is usually listed as being in Newtonville.(from the official town of Colonie website- mail going to the Pruyn House to P.O. Box 212 Newtonville, NY 12128 but the address is 207 Old Niskayuna Road) Newtonville is labeled by a state DOT sign when going south out of Latham on Route 9 towards Siena College. Newtonville can be found on mapquest and area maps such as those published by Jimapco. As a compromise I propose saying the college is in the hamlet of Newtonville but has a Loudonville mailing address. There are apartments and a shopping plaza within the city of Albany that have Loudonville addresses but are still within the city of Albany, ZIP codes arent the determining factor of where a location resides. If it was then no location in the incorporated village of Menands, New York can be put in the Menands article (including its own village hall) because they all uses an Albany ZIP code. At least Newtonville actually does have a Post Office. Round Lake, New York which is an incorporated village has the same exact problem as Newtonville, its post office only does PO boxes, I am unsure who does local delivery. I hope this clears up any confusion about Newtonville and I believe part of your reasoning had something to do with notability..I hope the businesses and locations that use the Newtonville name along with the DOT sign on Route 9 help on that account, along with the fact that it does have an article (albeit a stub), I can expand the Newtonville article when I get a chance if that is part of the problem.Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC) addendum- The Colonie Town Hall is listed on the official town website as being at 534 New Loudon Road, Newtonville, New York; it is directly across the street from the college...unless you proposing that the hamlet boundary between Loudonville and Newtonville goes down tmhe middle of Route 9 (New Loudon Road) then I think this should be definitive proof of what HAMLET the college is in regardless of its ZIP code.Camelbinky (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is trivial. I have no idea why you have wasted your time writing all this. It is not notable that some people may misunderstand where the college is. The article is pretty thin as it is - I am sure there are more important things to worry about. If it is a matter of record that some people misunderstand this, then provide a reliable source. --hippo43 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of examples above to show that the college is within the hamlet. Please do not revert again as this will be construed as vandalism. The college's article is pretty slim because of editing by someone with a conflict of interest, you can read about that problem in the talk page. The article at that time did read Newtonville but when it had to be scrapped and restarted it was restarted with Loudonville instead. If you wish to learn more about why ZIP codes are not the location of where a place is please read ZIP codes and scroll to the the subsection on "ZIP codes only loosely tied to cities". I would have preferred to compromise and have a legitimate discussion but you apparently think that would be "trivial".Camelbinky (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you didn't add the {{who?}} tag. I never said you did. I respect that you are trying to maintain the notability and validity of information added to articles. However, your citation about the college being in Loudonville hamlet is not substantiated, because the source does not say Loudonville hamlet specifically, merely Loudonville, which could refer to the ZIP code. There are many places that have a mailing address that doesn't match up with their physical location. Gansevoort NY, for example, is a hamlet in the town of Northumberland. But because there is a ZIP code that uses Gansevoort as a mailing address, people in the towns of Northumberland, Wilton, and Moreau have a Gansevoort mailing address. It would be factually inaccurate to say that someone in the town of Moreau lives in the hamlet of Gansevoort simply because they have a Gansevoort mailing address. Two more examples: West Mountain Ski Area says it is in Glens Falls NY. The Great Escape and Splashwater Kingdom says it is in Lake George. But that is by ZIP code. Actually both are in the town of Queensbury. I feel that there is insufficient evidence thus far to support either Loudonville or Newtonville as the hamlet containing Siena College. --JBC3 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think, if the Postal Address (Loudonville) and Physical Address (Colonie) were both left in the infobox that the Location section could be removed all together? --JBC3 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Me the vandal? The article said Newtonville first. You changed it to Loudonville and continued to put it after sources were put in per your request. You didnt even discuss your change or your issues until I asked that you would, and then instead of waiting to compromise or a consensus amongst users in the discusion page you continued to change it. It should have been left alone until a consensus. So far there is one in favor of Newtonville as the hamlet and Loudonville as the ZIP code, one in favor of just Loudonville, and one in favor of "no consensus at this moment" (if I am correct as to JBC3's position). I am able to live with JBC3's position, that makes it 2-1. I think the best thing to do is for JBC3, since JBC3's position is the most neutral I suggest that JBC3 send this to the proper place for an admin to come in and look at all the available positions and content and decide on the best course of action. I strongly urge you, Hippo, to read ZIP code and Administrative divisions of New York and learn about ZIP codes and hamlets. You are basing your opinion on "you must have a source that comes out and says it" and that you are trying to keep the "integrity" of sources. I suggest that instead of just finding sources and medling in articles you dont know about that first you talk to people who know the area, know the intricacies, inconsistancies, and quirks of the area and topic. I know you are well-meaning and doing this in good-faith. But ALL guidelines in wikipedia are just that, guidelines, there are no hard fast rules, all have the disclaimer at the top that they are to be taken with "common sense" and that there are exceptions and times to bend them and times they just dont apply. Your view that these are not "reliable" sources is ridiculous. Mapquest is reliable for other articles, I dont need to have a specific citation from a "rulebook" (which wikipedia guidelines specifically state there is NO RULEBOOK) for it to be accepted. It has already been accepted by the wikipedia community. As for New York Magazine, are you kidding?! New York (magazine) is not a reliable source?! Then I guess neither is US News & World Report or any other weekly magazine (though USN&WR is now a monthly, not a weekly). It has its own wikipedia article! So the magazine is notable enough to get an article but not good enough to be a source. I forget the other source you had a problem with. And as I showed you and had in the article, the post office allows for Siena to be the city name on the address for the college! So if you are going to say that Loudonville is the hamlet or the ZIP code or whatever you want to say, then I am within my rights to use the USPS official website to show that the name Siena is also the hamlet it is within. But I guess you will claim the United State Postal Service is not a reliable source. Whatever I put as a source you will claim is not reliable. I have put forth many reasons, and so has JBC3 as to why ZIP codes and hamlets are not the same and the problem. I have shown you that the town hall of Colonie directly across the street is itself in the hamlet of Newtonville according to the town itself! Hamlets dont just start on one side of the street like that! The Newtonville PO is within a 2 min walk from the campus and the Loudonville PO is several miles away! Go to the Colonie, New York article and look at the 1866 map of Watervliet (the name of Colonie before it was Colonie) and see the big bold letters of New Tonville P.O. they go right over where Siena College is today. Then look much lower on the map to where Loudonville is. I'm sure that wont meet your approval either. But just sit back and objectively look at the all the evidence, Newtonville for the address of the town hall across the street, the Newtonville Park is across the street as well, the Newtonville Methodist Church less than a mile away, the Mapquest source, the New York magazine source, the information on ZIP code that explains the difference between ZIP codes and where a place is, and the other information I have begged you to consider. It all adds up together to a convincing argument. If you really think an admin will walk in here and just go by what you are saying "they need a source, I have a source, they dont" and then look at all this information...if they side with you, good, I wont complain I will go on, I lost...but really do you think they'll ignore all this evidence? Admins became admins for a good reason, they look outside the box and use common sense. I tried to compromise with you by saying that Loudonville is the PO and Newtonville is the hamlet. Why is that not good enough? I can further compromise on just saying Colonie is the town, and leave it at that, with no mentioning of Loudonville or Newtonville.Camelbinky (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)addendum, I have gone ahead and asked one of the admins who is a member of the Capital District wikiproject to please go ahead and review the argument on the article page and our talk pages. I have asked only for an unbiased opinion on what argument seems logical based on the evidence, I for one will abide by whatever position he believes is logical and consistent with wikipedia. I would like to know if anyone else feels that they can live with the decision whatever way it falls?Camelbinky (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief. It's not my view that they are not reliable sources, it's Misplaced Pages policy. As far as I understand, verifiability is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, not just a guideline. As for your sources, I'll repeat - Mapquest does not state "Siena is in Newtonville." The blog you cited is not a reliable source. The magazine you linked to is itself a reliable source, but a classified advert within it is not. It also does not even say "Siena is in Newtonville" - it just lists an address, and as you have said, addresses can be misleading.

I did not add 'Siena is in Loudonville' to the articles. I only cleaned up what was already there. I then found a source from the college itself which you have tried to discredit, saying they are motivated by vanity. You seem to want to focus on ZIP codes and hamlets, but I have never mentioned the ZIP code or hamlet in my argument. Please don't patronise me any further by asking me to read articles (which are not relevant to what I've written), or suggest that I don't know anything about the subject. The lengthy tirades you have written on this suggest you may have lost a little perspective on it. --hippo43 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in one of my "lenghty tirades" I have contacted an admin about this issue. You can see their response on my talk page under the Siena College section. Since that admin. seems to agree that it is resonable to say Siena is in Newtonville I will now ask the admin. what steps I may take to make sure that I may add that information to the article without you reverting it. If an admin says I can put info in who do you think you are to remove it? You are not the source king of wikipedia. Please stop trolling pages and disrupting articles you know nothing about. You admit you dont wish to do research or learn. You try applying wikipedia guidelines as if they are steadfast laws with no regard to circumstances.Camelbinky (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw his reply. The map he links to suggests to you and him that Siena is in Newtonville but does not explicitly state as much. The college itself says it is in Loudonville, and I haven't seen any reason to doubt their version. If you can find good sources to contradict the college itself I would be happy to include them as one view on the subject. Unfortunately the sources you added were very poor, according to my understanding of WP:RS. As I understand it, verifiability is one of 3 core content policies on Misplaced Pages, not just a guideline. The other 2 are WP:NPOV and no original research. I believe looking at a map and deciding that Siena is in Newtonville would constitute original research, and that ignoring the College's own statement on the matter in favour of very weak sources would not represent a neutral point of view. Have you read and understood those policies?

I have looked online for a source which supports your view and haven't found a good one. A Google search for 'Siena "in Loidonville"' returns 30 times as many hits as 'Siena "in Newtonville."' A similar search on Google Books provides a ratio of about 7:1. I'm sure if you give it some thought you will realise that if the best sources you could find were a blog and a classified ad, then maybe the sources do not support your view. That is not to say that you are wrong, just that Misplaced Pages is based on verifiable information. The college itself states that it's in Loudonville. Can you produce a single good quality source which states that Siena is in Newtonville?

You asked "If an admin says I can put info in who do you think you are to remove it?" To me, this sounds like you are arguing with my reply before I've had a chance to say anything. I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages processes, but I don't think asking one admin to act as a 'judge' trumps Misplaced Pages policy. Perhaps post a request for third opinions at the article talk page rather than approaching individual editors who you already know. We could then get the views of a number of neutral editors.

You wrote "You admit you dont wish to do research or learn." I said no such thing. I only said that I was not basing my edits on a misunderstanding of ZIP codes so would not be reading articles at your request. If you read the edit history of the Siena article, you will see that you have misunderstood my position in your rants about the postal address and ZIP codes, perhaps because you were involved in a history of disagreements before I edited the article. I didn't write anything about the postal address or ZIP code - I only cleaned up the trivial "dispute" that was already there.

I never claimed to be the "source king" of anything, though I do have an interest in making the articles I contribute to as verifiable as possible. I'd appreciate it if you would stop claiming that I am editing articles which I know nothing about - this shows incredible arrogance on your part. I am not trolling, or disrupting anything. Please read WP:CIVIL before you throw any more insults my way. --hippo43 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as you say you have no wish to read about ZIP codes I have no wish to read WP:CIVIL (as I have already read most wikipedia guidelines already, I know what they say, I have alot of free time at the computer at work). For my own curiousity and not insulting you in anyway I would like you to explain how you were "cleaning up what was already there" when I had Newtonville there first and then you put in Loudonville after it my Newtonville edit had a who? tag put on it. You didnt give me time to cite the Newtonville reference. I am dropping this because as Wadester stated a WRONG piece of information properly cited unfortunately gets priority over the TRUTH. BUT I hope you please understand that at least you are wrong about the information! If you learn anything about anything from this article. And as for you claiming what you do is not trolling and is merely "an interest in making the articles I contribute to as verifiable as possible" please show me one contribution (other than this Loudonville fiasco) you have made to Siena College. Not an insult to outsiders contributing, simply my curiousity. What do you know about Siena other than what you have to look up first? Or about the town of Colonie and its hamlets, have you ever driven by it even? I'm just curious. If you havent it doesnt mean that you dont have a right to contribute. I am sorry I do rant. That's a flaw I have. It is verifiable as well. Perhaps I can find an offline source or do more digging and find something you will approve. I hope in the future I can approach you for help on what is a legitimate source.Camelbinky (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You say you have read these policies, but you don't appear to have acted on them. Please don't characterise me as an 'outsider' - you clearly know nothing about me. Looking at the history of the Siena article, I see you have been involved in this dispute with several other editors since at least December last year. I had made no contributions to the Siena article before this started because I had had no need to read it. I came to this article looking for a specific piece of info which wasn't here, and I noticed this section. Before I first edited the article, it read -

"While clearly in the town of Colonie, it is unclear as to which hamlet the college falls within. While the college has a Loudonville, NY ZIP code, there are those who feel Siena actually lies in the hamlet of Newtonville. The college's mailing address is ..."

I thought this was unencyclopaedic, as the apparent misunderstanding is trivial, the paragraph read very badly and the article really needs more substantial material than this in it. I edited it to read:

"The college is in the town of Colonie, and it has a Loudonville, NY ZIP code. The college's mailing address is ..."

I felt this was a fair version, as none of the remaining facts were in dispute. Any editor was free to edit this to show that the college is in Newtonville (or anywhere else) by providing a source. Although I removed the 'who' tag without waiting for a response, I felt this was a better course than leaving such an ugly version in place. I obviously underestimated the strength of feeling this would provoke from one editor. After I found the college's own source, I inserted it and changed the sentence again. This all seemed a reasonable approach to me.

Moving on, I will gladly support including a good source saying that Siena is in Newtonville if we find one. --hippo43 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for writing and clarifying. Don't worry, I would not feel comfortable blocking you in this situation; I'd let another admin make the call. My complaint about your sarcastic statement was the one you called "groupthink" after writing a version of the sentence that was clearly not going to be included in the article. I really thought that was a bit much.

Anyway, yes in retrospect the summary of the arguments is probably a little slanted (please, this is my first time writing an article RFC). I do feel the strongest aspect of it is the college's ZIP Code, and if I am able to see the map and it shows Siena's campus within that ZIP code, I think that may just settle it. (I'd note too, that the former headquarters of NYSP Troop G across Route 9 is described as being in Loudonville as well). Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fettes College: Academic Results and VCs

I have to agree that the sources that I inserted are not independent sources but they are reliable sources and I am a great believer that Wiki must be extensively sourced. I inserted the section on academic results myself several years ago to give some sense of balance to an article which goes on at length about drugs, air pistols etc. The insertion of that piece was undertaken after considerable research (in the absence of cuttings from the actual newspapers of the time) and it seems a bit weak to delete those sources just because they are not independent. Please can I respectfully suggest that it is important that the sources are not lost just in case anybody else wishes to go back to the sources from which I obtained the information? Dormskirk (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The newsletter is not a reliable source, according to WP:SPS. It can't be used, though I'm sure the actual newspaper sources could be found. --hippo43 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The other potential criticism is that the newsletter is not an independent source. I have therefore now researched and identified (with a little help from various libraries) the original newspaper sources and will insert them into the article. Thanks for your suggestion. Dormskirk (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin Sheen

Hey, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Martin Sheen about the nationality argument, I'd appreciate your input. Best, – Toon 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll reply at the article's talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Siena College

Just as a reminder, you're at 3RR on Siena College. I know both sides are discussing this on the talk page (I'm also leaving a warning on the other reverter's page), but please don't edit war, even while talking it over. Good luck on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Treble (association football)

So, what do you think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me - nice work. I have been too busy to have a close look at the latest version, so no doubt will be along soon with a lot of pedantic objections! :) --hippo43 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look forward to it... :) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of New York

Thanks for the tag. Administrative divisions of New York could use some improvement, especially in the way of references. I've added it to my list of priorities. I wanted to drop a quick note about a reference I just added to the town section. It's not enough on its own to substantiate the statement made; I still need more sources to back it up. It cites a part of the Consolidated Laws, which basically says if a town dissolves, it has to be annexed into another town. I still have to find sources to demonstrate that places within a city or indian reservation are not within a town, and that all parts of a county not within a city or indian reservation are within a town. So I'm working on it. If you'd rather I didn't keep you up-to-date as to what I'm doing with this article, just let me know and I'll wait until you have specific questions. --JBC3 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not an expert on the topic, so I'm probably not the best person to involve. The article has obviously taken a lot of work and looks good, but I was just concerned that it cites few references and might contain original research, particularly if passionate (but occasionally misguided) editors have worked on it, as I believe was the case with Siena. I will take a look at it when I have some time. I may be able to help with the language, if not the detail. Thanks again. --hippo43 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to offer my services, if they are wanted, for working on Administrative divisions of New York. I am, with no ego intended nor insult towards others, an expert on the topic. I do have some concerns about certain judgements made in the article (the statement to the effect that towns in NY are similar to townships in other states is not at all a correct assumption or analogy or whatever it was intended to convey, its a misrepresentation of what towns in NY do and what townships are in other states). I could use help in finding suitable citations and what is acceptable as I dont know if the textbooks I use in the undergrad courses I TA will be acceptable or "original research". I know there will be lots of sources out there that are not technical or comprehensive on the topic (and they have lots of bad info or poorly worded interpretations) and I dont want to get into an argument of what is correct vs. what is said in the majority of sources someone finds if those sources outnumber the truth in what is taught in a poli sci class. I am passionate (though I take offence at "misguided") about the topic of Admn. div. of NY and if that will annoy or cause problems with other editors I will stay out of the article.Camelbinky (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC) And for the record I have never in the past (to the best of my recollection) ever edited to the article.

You don't need my permission - go ahead. I'm sure you will do a good job. I only tagged the article because I thought it was badly referenced, not necessarily wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope that if we collaborate and find common ground that we can mend any fences that may have been broken (mostly by me) in the previous argument. I have found that is the best way to make a wiki-friend, it worked for Doncram and I after butting heads on two articles we worked together on one and now I often turn to him for advice on articles. I will start putting what I know on the talk page and if you have anytime and can help I would appreciate any pointers on where to possibly find online sources for these tidbits of knowledge, as that is often easier to cite on wikipedia for others to see and verify than a hardcopy book (and I would prefer not to have to flip through many different books and re-read them just to find the specific info if it is at all quicker to do a google search or whatever).Camelbinky (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You have reverted 5 times in a few hours. That is a violation of WP:3RR. Please discuss rather than reverting. Rracecarr (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How many times have you reverted? Repeatedly inserting unsourced content or non-reliable sources breaches WP:V, as well as being inconsistent with the article intro and consensus on the article talk page about including reliably sourced examples. There is no requirement for me to leave unreferenced examples tagged in the text. The burden of verifiability is with the editor who inserts or restores material. Leaving spurious warnings like this, and patronising edit summaries, is not constructive. If you need to discuss what sources are reliable, as Dreamfocus did re 'Seasons', the talk page is the place to do it. --hippo43 (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)