User talk:Brilliantine/Archive 1

If I may...

Given that a simple search for the character in question turns up plenty of mentions relevant to the character not to mention franchise and cross-franchise appearances, a better tag given a lack of references would be one requesting they be added, not one for notability, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I was more concerned about the previous tag for notablility being removed without further references being added. Change the tag if you wish (to a reference-related one), I don't really mind. Brilliantine (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One Canada Square

I disagree that you have taken out the Canary Wharf Contractors and Canary Wharf Offices links, and the paragraph that mention contracting.

The links are important because:

1) The Canary Wharf Contractors website provides official information about One Canada Square. There are very few official sources and publications on One Canada Square. The site also contains very important information about the construction.

2) Canary Wharf Offices website contain information about One Canada Square (almost most of it is commerical, the website do contain important floor information), as well as pictures that are unique that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet.

3) The paragraph that mention the contracting may not flow fully with the article yet, but this article is currently being fully re-edited, and it is important that all of the information is still in this article, rather than bits taken out just because it does not flow yet.

I think your edit should be reverted back.

It's not a big deal for me, the only one of those I feel at all strongly about is #2 - it doesn't seem too appropriate to me, as there is already plenty of floor information on the article. The others were based on gut feeling, put them back if you like or ask somebody else to take a look. I reckon the article could use some reorganisation though, as a section called 'miscellaneous' seems to be evidence of structureal problems to me. If you like, one of us could come up with some proposals for how to restructure the article and put them on the article's talk page.

Thanks for taking the time to leave me a message here. Brilliantine (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely structural problems with the article as it does not flow well. So many people have written what they would like to see in the article, making it disjointed. The trouble is that when somebody deletes something, someone else gets offended. The balance is difficult, and therefore, structuring the article is difficult.

The article most certainly has not reached its full potential yet because it lacks detailed history. For example, there is no mention of the building designation.

The article previously contained lots of errors, though most of this is now corrected.

I need to give it some thought of what may be best.

87.114.146.11 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Yourself. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. In fact, you're a halfwit Brilliantine (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

I notice from your comments on the Proposed Decision talk page for C68-FM-SV, you are very frustrated and looking at at a move to correct the problems with the institution if they do indeed dismiss the case. Are you interested in helping out with the proposed MfD? Mr. IP (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it won't work. The structure of Arbcom isn't what I have a problem with in any case, I have just lost confidence in the current arbitrators. Brilliantine (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

warning?

Hey, let me know where your info was reverted and you were issued a warning. I will take a look at the addition and re-evaluate it, if you wish. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's alright - I put it (Dorset street no longer being a street) back in later and added (barely necessary) sources. It just gave me a bad impression of the page, no offence meant by my comments on the talk. I think the reverting issue happens on quite a number of pages. Brilliantine (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, reverting tends to happen everywhere. B. :) I am glad that it finally worked out, though. Try to give the page another chance. If everyone is able to keep their cool, things will probably work out just fine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they will. Interestingly, the reverting thing seems to be happening a lot more in the last year or so, I think. Wonder why - probably just more people I suppose. Brilliantine (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandwhich vs Sandwich

It should have read: Bologna sandwhich and Bologna sandwich. Sorry. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha... Brilliantine (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:VANITY

Please remember that this link is depreciated for a reason (ie it is inflammatory). The correct one to use is WP:COI. Have a nice day. :)  Asenine  15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry - I didn't know it had been deprecated. Thanks for the heads-up. Brilliantine (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Thanks. My plan is to get the articles first, doing dabs along the way, then the redirects. It keeps things moving faster - as many of redirects will turn out to need to be dabs anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, was just checking to be sure. Impressive number of articles, by the way. Brilliantine (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the references in JTR

...is that neither of them refer to the statement. All the citations are of books that presumably use the term, but none of the references note that the term is used by "many", "some" or "a number" of authors. Seems to me that if we are going to use a reference, it should be one that refers to something being said. As it is, currently using a lot of citations to bolster the argument that a number of authors use the term is in fact synthesis, using published material to advance a position, and its presence is a vestigial remainder of a WP:POINT argument regarding the term's usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, 'many' and 'some' are both WP:WEASEL words in this context. It should be something like "The writing has been referred to by authors such as Curtis(ref) and Douglas(ref) as the Goulson Street graffito." Also, the sentence should be moved to somewhere else within the paragraph for greater readability, in my opinion.

It's funny though, I think Douglas is the of the authors listed that I've ever heard of - what's he doing writing whole books about this? Brilliantine (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, maybe. Who knows what quirks live in the hearts of "ripperologists"? The Shadow knows...

Seriously though, your resolution seems equitable and encyclopedic, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Thanks. By the way, the more specific convention Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) is probably more applicable, but redirects will come. Stay tuned, or better yet, help out. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, oops, I forgot about that one. I might just help out, if I could even begin to figure out where to start - how many have you added? Must be in four figures for sure.... Brilliantine (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re The Case at AN

You may want to actually redact a few bits and bobs of information in your explanations - I got a bit curious and investigated a little, and was able to determine the usernames X, Y and Z within about 10 minutes (despite not having admin privileges). Brilliantine (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't blame you but I'd blame myself and some of the members of the community who would just argue and won't relax a little and think about privacy first (i.e. My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate or This should not be a decision of a single admin or an arb, blah, blah, blah....) Incredible! The problem is that their knowledge of the basics of the case is limited but still...! Whatever you do, you'd just fail somewhere because of that and the intensity of the investigation itself. I appreciate people saying at least "thank you for your work before arguing against a decision. But well. They don't - I am referring mainly to a single editor as you could notice (not more than one). Could you please fix it yourself Brilliantine as I got confused? I've got a headache because of much investigation and baseless arguments. A tip, you could do it while commenting on other issues without people noticing it (reducing the exposure at least). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain. I think you've done a sterling job, by the way. I'll see what I can do, assuming that Y is the one that needs to be kept private. Feel free to blank this discussion once you've read this. Brilliantine (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

James Parrott and the four-minute mile

In what way is this section "unbalanced"? It's a single incident, clearly and repeatedly sourced to reliable sources, and makes it clear that the record is not recognised. I don't see how this could be "balanced"; coverage of the "accepted" version of the four minute mile record is in the four-minute mile article, linked in the section. – iridescent 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it is by no means a mainstream view that a successful four minute mile run took place, whereas the article as it stands suggests it to have been a strong probability. This is not very encyclopedic. Brilliantine (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting that two of the three links are broken. Also, two of those articles appear to be articles by the same author, and it's usually preferable if the multiple sources are independent of each other. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd problem with your AfD

Hey there, you started this AfD: [1]. I weighed in on that. That was two weeks ago. I checked back and saw we had the only input. I then checked the main article and it is not linked to the AfD. In fact, there is no history of linkage. Do you know what went wrong? Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue, I nominated it using twinkle, so maybe something went wrong there. It's entirely possible I may have made some outrageous mistake without noticing..? Brilliantine (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it's a possibility. You may want to withdraw the nomination and close the debate as a non-admin closure. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have tried to redo. Twinkle must have failed me the first time. Brilliantine (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

London

Hi. Just to make you aware of this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk, as you probably have seen. Brilliantine (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent MfD

I closed out the MfD you recently filed. We try to avoid creating deletion debates when we are unsure of their importance. Theres no harm done. If you have any questions about the page, you can go here, to the talk page and ask questions. Just a friendly reminder from Synergy 04:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was rather startled to find a load of userboxes on that page. Obviously not the right thing to do, but it was a spur of the moment thing. I haven't worked much in WP space other than AFDs before, so I'm new to these things. I've been here a lot lot longer than this account though, I just don't like to develop a username with a personality.

A discussion is now present on the talk page, in any case. Brilliantine (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. If you have any questions about the project namespace, drop by my talk page anytime with a question. Synergy 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there Brilliantine. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a brief comment, but it's not really useful - I only made a single observation before. Brilliantine (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar, and the correction thereof

I know you meant well, but please don't correct peoples' grammar on talk pages - comments by others should never be amended. best, –xeno (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you like - I've always been under the impression obvious accidental typos were fine to correct, though. I shall make a point of avoiding doing so in future. Apologies if it caused any hassle. Brilliantine (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

it's not a huge deal, but it typically should not be done. someone might want to throw poor grammer in there to make a point... ;> –xeno (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I shall try to avoid it from here on in :) Brilliantine (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

OK. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pritchard article

"In any case, I have cached the google cache with Coral CDN in case it goes away and the article stays gone away" You seem friendly enough…might you toss me the link?Proabivouac (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

http://64.233.183.104.nyud.net:8090/search?q=cache:94LYBhAwXh4J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alwyn_Pritchard+%22alwyn+pritchard%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=uk here. I don't really know how the CDN cache system works, but I know it keeps things around a bit longer sometimes. Brilliantine (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Burnt Oak Records AfD

Your opinion on the AfD for Burnt Oak Records was "weak delete", specifically requesting "another piece of non-trivial coverage". I have added a piece of coverage from Echo Weekly and from The Record. The Echo coverage is from a profile on the Burnt Oak band Brides, but the article addresses Burnt Oak just about as much as it does Brides. The Record coverage just mentions that Burnt Oak was one of the major organizers of the Kazoo Festival. Hopefully it is enough to sway you from "weak delete" to "keep". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your vote

I noticed your switch to oppose me in the election and I felt I should clear some things up. Yes, I have as an aside mentioned that I am not opposed of the idea of a parliament on Wikipedia. Would this affect my work as an arbitrator? No. Would I be actively campaigning for a parliament as an arbitrator or even as a regular administrator? No. Would I propose such a thing, or do I plan on proposing it? No, not even close. I give you my complete assurances that a parliament is not and will never be part of the reforms of ArbCom or Wikipedia in general that I seek or propose. I urge you to please reconsider your support for me. Thank you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I will think about it but I can't promise anything. Brilliantine (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! Could you also remove the "talk of a parliament" part of your vote rationale, please? It's misleading other voters into believing I'm a steadfast supporter of a parliament when in fact I am not. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is misleading but I have changed it anyway. Brilliantine (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it very much! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply on my talk page

Thanks for the message. I've replied on my talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)