Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:02, 21 July 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Speccy4Eyes! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! JMHamo (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nomination of Liam Johnson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Liam Johnson is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Liam Johnson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mattlore (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Your latest edit on the Cotswolds

Speccy, why did you revert my latest edit on the Cotswolds?

Your edit description said: "Restored the height as was prior to this edit sequence, the source supports it too, so no need (or consensus) for change)" However, the displayed height was exactly the same in both our edits, so there was nothing to restore.

I think you edited on the mistaken impression that I had reversed the display of the figures. This is not the case. The display was unchanged. All that changed was the coding, which is truer to the source, because it put the height in metres first (as per the UK maps it was based on) and then flipped the display.

Just as your edit improved on my edit by making both the feet and the metres the same as the source, my edit improved on your edit by adjusting the convert template to ensure that the cite was true to the source while preserving the prevailing order of units in the article. As a result, the article was improved by both our edits.

I would appreciate it if you could re-examine your edit. If what I say is right, I would appreciate it if you reverted your latest edit. However, if there is any other concern, please let us discuss it. Remember, my edit did not alter the display of units in the article. Michael Glass (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The original value in feet didn't need to be changed as the source you added, and any number of others, all make it readily verifiable. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

MOSNUM says: "Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the ... template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary." This is what I did in my edit, and which I clearly stated above. It is not best practice to misrepresent the source, as your edit does. Michael Glass (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with MOSNUM, by all means raise it on the MOSNUM talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you make my point for me! The article's primary units did not differ from the units given in the source, and the source was not misrepresented - the source gives the hill height in feet too. My edit summary made that clear, yet you persist in arguing an invalid point. Why can't you see, or accept, that? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"The article's primary units did not differ from the units given in the source," False

• "...the source was not misrepresented" False
• " the source gives the hill height in feet too." True. It gives the hill height in feet second' You have just made my point for me.
• "My edit summary made that clear..." False. Your edit summary obfuscates this point.

I can't see or accept your point because it is demonstrably false.

Instead of making statements that are demonstrably false, please answer these questions:

• The source puts this as the height of the hill: Height:330m / 1083ft. Do the metres come first or don't they? Here is the link.
• Every other measure noted on this source is metric only. Is this statement right or is it wrong?
• The article concerned puts this information about its source of information: "OS map sheet(s): (1:50k) 163 (1:25k) 179" Are these the official Government maps or are they not?

Please answer these three specific questions about this source. Then perhaps we can have a rational discussion about the units of measure used in the source. Michael Glass (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The source, as you yourself state, gives the height as "Height:330m / 1083ft". The article reads as "The highest point of the region is Cleeve Hill at 1,083 ft (330 m)", with ft as primary. That 1,083 ft in the article is clearly verifiable directly from that source - it (the 1083 ft) is there in black and white, as clear as the nose on your face; there is no ambiguity at all.

Therefore my statement "The article's primary units did not differ from the units given in the source, and the source was not misrepresented - the source gives the hill height in feet too." is all true - both parts.

My edit summary was "the primary unit in the article is feet so leave it as it is, it is verifiable from the current source and from any number of others", which I gave when I restored the status quo, is as clear as could be fitted into the limited space available. It explicitly and without the obfuscation you claim, explains the precise reason for my restoration - that the source supports the feet figure. Your refusal to accept that is nothing more than bad-faith.

Finally, as I have shown that all my statements that you challenged are clearly and demonstrably true, I will treat your three irrational and loaded questions with the contempt that they deserve. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for dodging, weaving ducking, and treating with contempt two of my questions. Please note these points:

• You have conceded that the source gives the height of the hill in both metres and feet, with the height in metres coming first.
• You know full well that every other measures noted in this source was metric only, but did not have what it takes to admit it.
• You know full well that the source of the information came from the official maps, which gave the height of the features in metres but again you weren't prepared to admit it.

This does not well on you.

Please note the following:

• Both your edit and my edit read exactly the same in the article. I pointed this out to you politely that the only difference was in the coding. Despite this, you are persisting in going on as if my edit changed the order of units in the article. This simply is not the case. 1,083 feet (330 m) and 1,083 feet (330 m) read exactly the same. I am at a loss to understand why you are going on as if they appear differently. Michael Glass (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)