User talk:Haldraper

I have tried to start a talk page on this, and would be grateful for your input, specifcally, why and how you have reached the conclusion that the FDA is not a trade union, when it is, in fact, a registered trade union, and has been for decades. Guineveretoo (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now being discussed at WP:EAR - please feel free to join the discussion there too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no basis to claim there's "no evidence" that the Brooklyn/L.A. Dodgers and the N.Y./S.F. Giants are just two different clubs, not four, as the evidence is right there in the articles. I have posted your "work" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball‎ to give you a chance to explain yourself before I turn you in to WP:ANI for disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the name-calling. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing! On the project page, I have listed the history links for the Giants and Dodgers at the official MLB site. They include their New York City years in their own histories. The Dodgers history page has a front page feature about their own Jackie Robinson, who of course played all his major league years in Brooklyn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as know and I wasnt born then it was known simply as "the Derby" back then. Yes Merseyside did not come into existence until 1974 but I can assure you if you said the Liverpool derby in the city people would think it was a race at Aintree. I welcome your input but please refrain from changing pages names without discussing it first. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Haldraper (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VB is not a bitter: I've left rationale there for its inclusion. SimonTrew (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Labour Party UK 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. --Welshsocialist (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I wanted to give you an opportunity to do a self revert to avoid getting reported. Mamalujo (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've only been editing for less than three months and never received a proper welcome message. If you look at WP:Welcome, you'll see what Wikipedia newbies are normally advised to look at. This will help you know what people might be talking about when they acuse you of violating WP:3RR or WP:NPOV.

By the way, even though I am another MT-sceptic, I rather feel that you're onto a loser trying to exclude "humanitarian" from the description.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand this; if a reliable source described than as "finest buildings"; then it can't breach WP:NPOV to say that. Otherwise we'd be left with "Adolf Hitler was a man". Rodhullandemu 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it not a statement claiming that they a the 'finest' in relation to other cities. It means the finest in the city. If you can find a source that doesn't think the buildings in question are 'many of the finest' then I'll happily remove the statement --Daviessimo (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, NPOV doesn't mean remove praise or condemnation if there is no balancing view; it means we represent both sides of an opinion, but only if they actually exist. Rodhullandemu 19:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to raise this major major on the Talk page, where it has been discussed and agreed. Please revert that change and then raise the suggestion on the talk page. --Duncan (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As before, I object to this and request that you revert the page. Just because I don't reply to you within 48 hours, that does not mean I am convinced. --Duncan (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have come to a consensus on this. I support the FI and all but this needs at least better framing with regard to the idea that some Trotskyists don't consider the FI to be, you know, "The FI." Cadriel (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been merged Cadriel. Reading the main FI page, it became clear that most of the material on the 'FI (post-1963)' page could easily be fitted into it. The page is still there as 'USFI (1963-2003)' describing the ex-central body of the FI although I'm not sure if that's really necessary so it could probably be deleted. I think the conclusion we came to is that the body reunified in 1963 is the only one that claims - justifiably imo - to be the descendent of the organisation founded in 1938. The splits from it that use some variant of the name are all mentioned with links to their own pages and the disambiguation page makes clear who they are. I think this may be the best solution we're going to get.Haldraper (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the merge; when we discussed the possibility just a few days ago, there was clearly no consensus for it. You proposed your possible solution at the time, and it was rejected. Warofdreams talk 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper, your edits to the Catholic Church are improper. You are removing consensus agreed text and pictures without any discussion first on the talk page. A lot of people have worked for over a year and a half to get the page just the way it is. If you want to change something or if you disagree with something, bring it up on the talk page first. Also, we do not use magazines as references in the history section unless it is discussiing a recent event. WP:reliable source examples suggests using scholarly sources written by university professors who are experts in their field published by university presses or publishers with a reputation for fact checking. Tertiarty sources were used to determine the scope of sections as Wikipedia allows. Your addition of estimates of the number of people killed in the Albigensian Crusade may be allowed in the article if you have a scholarly source and discuss it on the talk page. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 00:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Catholic Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. anietor (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being rather disruptive over at the Catholic Church article. Your two most recent edits have what I consider to be misleading edit summaries. You claim to be removing only POV, unsourced material, yet the edit history is showing that you are taking out the sources along with the statements. If you don't like something, bring it up to the talk page and suggest changes there, but removing sourced statements from this article, that has been the product of some of the best collaborative editing on the 'pedia, just because you don't like what they say, is unacceptable. Gentgeen (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper: Please STOP making unagreed POV edits to the Catholic Church main page. You have been told that this is not the way to do things, and that you must discuss and agree significant changes here first - yet you persist. I see from your talk page that you are a new editor, and have been warned many times already for this sort of behaviour on other articles. PLEASE CEASE Xandar 14:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24h for disruptive edting at Catholic Church William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1474030 lifted or expired. Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you, Haldraper, for your kind words. I was interested to read your comment that there were more Englishmen and Irishmen on the American side of the War of Independence than on that of a German monarch with a mercenary army. In reply, I would say that it is therefore somewhat ironic that German Americans are the largest ethnic group in the U.S. One of them (Gen. Eisenhower) even led the Allied forces in defeating Nazi Germany. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your (Hal's) points illustrate something I've mentioned in a number of talk pages. Nationality isn't a straightforward concept. What actually counts?

1. place of birth: is it
   1. the country the place was in when they were born there? then
      1. the composer Franck was Dutch; I've only ever seen him described as either Belgian or French
      2. this was actually the criterion used in English law until fairly recently: you were one of us if you were born in the dominions of the monarch; this meant that Sir William Herschel, who was born in Hanover after 1714, didn't need to be naturalized before being knighted
   2. the country it's in now: then
      1. Kant was Russian
      2. Bartok was Roumanian
      3. Archimedes was Italian
      4. Herodotus was Turkish (& maybe Homer too)
      5. Augustine of Hippo was Algerian
2. male line ancestry: then
   1. George III was Italian
   2. James VI & I was Breton
3. overall blood: then
   1. as you say, George III was almost entirely German (Queen Victoria even more so)
   2. the present Queen is rather less than 1/2 English, but less German than that
4. upbringing, which you mention; I have to say this is the way I tend to think of it myself; culturally, people tend to belong where they were brought up; I tend to regard people as British if they sound British, which is usually iff they were brought up here
5. legal nationality: some people have more than 1, either simultaneously or successively
   1. Franck was successively Dutch, Belgian & French
   2. Stravinsky was successively Russian, French & American

All in all, it illustrates my more general point that infoboxes are often rubbish. Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haldraper! Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Greater Manchester-related articles. Given the interest we're assuming you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Greater Manchester? It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Greater Manchester-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. The project has in-house specialists to support and facilitate your ideas. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We hope to be working with you in the future!

--Jza84 |  Talk  16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hal, thanks for getting back to me, and what an eye for detail! I'm sorry I rarely have time to engage in developing these articles myself.

I quote you from Peter Taaffe's book, the Rise of Militant: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/militant/ch4.htm

"John Throne was from a Protestant background (his father had been the head of the Orange Order in Donegal) but had become a socialist and was involved, in a prominent position, in the Civil Rights struggle in the Bogside Defence Association and the Northern Ireland Labour Party in Derry, being chair of the Young Socialists."

This is in the late 1960s, not long after the Militant began publication.

By the way, I hope you saw my comment in the discussion page on the first para changes. It would be interesting to see how many other editors are watching the page and have an opinion. Andysoh (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Of course, the deeper you dig, the more complex the situation alays turns out to be. The CWI in Ireland is one separate CWI section which operated different strategies in the north and in the South, although both north and South, in the late 1960s, operated within the respective Labour Parties.

In general one would say that North of Ireland 'Miltant supporters' were not part of the Militant tendency, as you point out. The NILP was not a part of the LP in Britain as you know, albeit it had a close relationship.

But Wiki policy is to keep it simple and avoid "technical" issues, which can be gone into in the body of the article. I tend to think that the difficulties we are discussing here arise only when we try to do too much with the opening sentence.

It seems to me the wiki link to the Labour Party in the opening para is sufficient to deal with matters in relation to Northern Ireland since the opening para of the Labour Party article is clear on the question.

Andysoh (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the images in the Beer article in order to get a wider view. See Talk:Beer#Lead_images. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• a b c d McGonigle, p. 172 quote "Hitler, of course flagrantly violated the rights of Catholics and others whenever it pleased him. Catholic Action groups were attacked by Hitler's police and Catholic schools were closed. Priests were persecuted and sent to concentration camps. ... On Palm Sunday, March 21 1937, the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was read in Catholic Churches in Germany. In effect it taught that the racial ideas of the leader (fuhrer) and totalitarianism stood in opposition to the Catholic faith. The letter let the world, and especially German Catholics, know clearly that the Church was harassed and persecuted, and that it clearly opposed the doctrines of Nazism."
• a b c d e f Bokenkotter, pp. 389–392, quote "And when Hitler showed increasing belligerence toward the Church, Pius met the challenge with a decisiveness that astonished the world. His encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was the 'first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism' and 'one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican.' Smuggled into Germany, it was read from all the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday in March 1937. It denounced the Nazi "myth of blood and soil" and decried its neopaganism, its war of annihilation against the Church, and even described the Fuhrer himself as a 'mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance'. The Nazis were infuriated, and in retaliation closed and sealed all the presses that had printed it and took numerous vindictive measures against the Church, including staging a long series of immorality trials of Catholic clergy."
• a b c d Rhodes, p. 204-205 quote "Mit brennender Sorge did not prevaricate. Although it began mildly enough with an account of the broad aims of the Church, it went on to become one of the greatest condemnations of a national regime ever pronounced by the Vatican. Its vigorous language is in sharp contrast to the involved style in which encyclicals were normally written. The education question was fully and critically examined, and a long section devoted to disproving the Nazi theory of Blood and Soil (Blut und Boden) and the Nazi claim that faith in Germany was equivalent to faith in God. There were scathing references to Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century and its neo-paganism. The pressure exercised by the Nazi party on Catholic officials to betray their faith was lambasted as 'base, illegal and inhuman'. The document spoke of "a condition of spiritual oppression in Germany such as has never been seen before", of 'the open fight against the Confessional schools and the suppression of liberty of choice for those who desire a Catholic education'. 'With pressure veiled and open,' it went on, 'with intimidation, with promises of economic, professional, civil, and other advantages, the attachment of Catholics to the Faith, particularly those in government employment, is exposed to a violence as illegal as it is inhuman.' 'The calvary of the Church': 'The war of annihilation against the Catholic Faith'; 'The cult of idols'. The fulminations thundered down from the pulpits to the delighted congregations. Nor was the Fuhrer himself spared, for his 'aspirations to divinity', 'placing himself on the same level as Christ': 'a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance' (widerliche Hochmut)." NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your edits on the Catholic Church talk page here: [1] I have also detailed which sentences in which sources support article text. Please do not place citation needed tags on sentences that are clearly cited. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Holt's bitter.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just add the link from the flickr page to the information template. Salavat (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just cut and paste the link straight after the equals sign on the same line as "source" on the image page. Salavat (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hydes brewery.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think your edit is misleading. It suggests that Socialists previously opposed imperialist wars, but did take sides in the Second World War because of the threat of physical extermination of the labour movement. That is not the Trotskyist position, and was not the basis of the PMP. The PMP argues that socialists should go with the call up in order to stay close to the workers - and not as a way to taking sides against the threat of fascism. --Duncan (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD I have undone your edits to the above article. Some of them, like some of the delinking, seemed reasonable but removing the Mike's Place bombing will be controversial and against consensus. Had you viewed the article talkpage you will have seen the extensive discussion surrounding the inclusion of this section, and the consensus that formed to include it. Should you wish to restart the debate then you should do so there. I also suspect that some of the other delinking you did - such as the house demolition one - would also give rise to dispute, so again I would request that you form consensus before making similar actions. Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a user RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise. From my analysis of the diffs, I think you are eligible to certify this, although you are, of course, under no obligation to do so. If you choose to certify, please check to make sure that I have not missed any key diffs in your attempts to resolve the dispute. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, is this called "WP:canvassing"? NancyHeise ^talk 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper, I came to your talk page to ask you about this [2] edit. I have added a section to the article talk page to discuss it. I think it is too detailed for this article and we try to use scholarly sources in the history section, not .com's. Can you please come talk to us about this? I think you could find that info in a scholarly source and say what you want to say in a single sentence at most. We are trying to keep article length down a bit since some have complained about article size being too big. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please discuss before moving to an article based on her maiden name, as you don't have a consensus. Thanks.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding your edit and comment about the word "groups" - in reference to the personal ordinariates for former Anglicans on the Catholic Church page - being "vague", can I point out that the word "groups" is actually the term that the Vatican in its apostolic constitution on this issue uses. In fact the Latin name of the consitution translates as "Anglican groups" or "groups of Anglicans". Therefore the word is actually the correct one to use in the article. Cheers. Afterwriting (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Christ myth theory. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ari (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop reverting at Christ myth theory you may be able to avoid a block for edit warring. You have already violated the three revert rule. Instead of continuing to revert, try to persuade others on the Talk page that your version is correct. A large text removal, like the one you made at 13:07 on 29 December, is unlikely to win you any friends and supporters, even among those who believe that the Christ myth theory may be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I have again reverted your attempt to link this subject to Holocaust denial and flat earthers in the lead. WP:LEAD requires an overview of the subject, not a verbatim rendering of footnotes used, let alone those of religiously motivated critics of it which are clearly WP:UNDUE WEIGHT anyway. You seem to think this page is Jesus or Historical Jesus rather than Christ myth theory, although given your clear conflict ot interest pastor, I question whether you should be editing it at all.Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this, so I'll take them in order.

(1) Your edits to the Christ Myth article violate the Three Revert Rule; stop. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

(2) The current lead is not a "verbatim rendering of footnotes" but a brief summary of some scholars' views, sourced with footnotes.

(3) The scholars who compare the Christ Myth to Holocaust denial and so on are not obviously motivated by religious concerns--don't try to mind-read--Crossan and Ehrman are very unlikely to possess such motivations in this matter.

(4) These critical comments are most apropos in the Christ Myth article and not the Jesus/Historical Jesus articles. The critical comments are explicitly directed at the subject of the Christ Myth page and are only tangentially relevant to your proffered alternatives.

(5) My edits clearly do not represent a conflict of interest. I am not writing about myself, my family, my friends, my business, my band, my legal case, my favored political candidate, or any other related thing. I am writing about a historical/literary theory articulated in the 18th century and developed since then. Further, all my edits are heavily footnoted with reliable 3rd party sources which generally derive from recognized experts in relevant fields. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Christ myth theory. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Haldraper reported by Eugeneacurry (talk) (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed|I am not sure I have contravened 3RR: I cut the final lead para from Christ myth theory and when it was rv I cut it again. On the second rv I rewrote it and then rv that when it too was cut. I therefore appeal the block. I also have my own complaint of WP:COI to make against Eugeneacurry, who has been editing California Southern Baptist Convention despite being a pastor in that church as his user page makes clear, which I am unable to submit at WP:COIN. Are you or another admin able to look into that for me? Haldraper (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Autoblock has been cleared. Rodhullandemu 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love that "consensus" was achieved by blocks. When you get out of jail could you sign Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Dec_5th_poll just indicating the obvious that you weren't consenting to the changes that you got blocked for opposing. Thanks in advance and good luck jbolden1517^Talk 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email me when you get this.

Thanks for reponding to my request for clarification with this edit. The text is much more informative and is improved in tone. (The previous wording seemed likely to evoke a ‘looks like Catholic whining’ response in the minds of unsympathetic readers). Ian Spackman (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the history with that page is that the definition needs to be stated absolutely clearly or anything and everything gets called a pale ale. --Killing Vector (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please see my comment at Talk:Catholic Church in England and Wales? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to remove the section on the party being center-left. In the talk page we had come to consensus about the party being centrist and center-left. If you are going to remove that particular unreferenced claim then I suggest you remove its political position as well, which again, we have come to consensus on and is unreferenced. I noticed you did not however remove a nearly identical unreferenced claim on the Republican Party's page.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources." Consensus is irrelevant when it is based on original research.Haldraper (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just to want to say straight off: I respect your sources and I have no intention of engaging in an edit war. At the same time, I also hope that you can show deference to academic sources that disagree with your viewpoint. I find it almost astounding to believe that the Lib Dems have "moved to the right," as you said in your last edit, when the horse's mouth proudly proclaims "we are the only party that believes in fairness" ahead of the British general elections. If there are any more generally leftist concepts than equality and fairness, you'd be hard-pressed to find them. I hope we can come to some sort of amicable understanding here. Another user intimately involved with the article suggested that we could call the party both 'centrist' and 'centre-left.' I'm willing to adopt that framework, and include all of our sources, in the spirit of compromise. Let me know what you think.UberCryxic (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ubercyrix, every party in Britain claims to believe in "fairness", maybe we should tag them all as centre-left? The main body of the article is actually pretty clear about how the Liberals/Lib Dems while historically a centrist party adopted some centre-left positions under Kennedy at the time of the Iraq war to appeal to Labour voters but has since moved to the right - e.g. over tax cuts and student top-up fees - which is unsurprising given the number of Tory/Lib Dem marginals. You might also want to look at their recent record in local government which is certainly not centre-left.Haldraper (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every party in Britain claims to believe in fairness? I'm not British, but to quote the British, that's bollocks. Go review the Conservative Party website and you'll see equality and fairness are not even remotely important ideas in their platform. As long as we're at it, a fundamental difference between the right and the left in more recent times has been the mantra "life's not fair" for the former and "we can make it fair" for the latter. The Lib Dems fall in the leftist camp in their general view of social justice, equality, and fairness, which are not concepts embraced by all British parties (why the heck would you say something like that?).UberCryxic (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ubercyrix, I took you advice and went to the Conservative Party website. A quick search for "fairness" produces this speech by Shadow Chancellor George Osborne entitled, guess what, 'On Fairness' which includes the following:

"Fairness is one of the strongest impulses that underpins our social fabric, forms the basis of our relationships, and as political thinkers from Locke to Lincoln have argued, gives our democracy legitimacy...The first characteristic of a fair society is one where people are properly rewarded for their effort and ability. And the great victory for the right in my lifetime, across the world, has been to show that this is best achieved through free markets operating within the framework of the rule of law, a fair tax system and strong social norms.

The second characteristic of a fair society is one in which there is equality of opportunity, so that people can achieve their aspirations regardless of their background and no one is left behind. And I believe here in Britain my party is now winning the argument that the progressive goals of reducing poverty and increasing mobility are best achieved by Conservative means.

The third characteristic of a fair society is less familiar but as important – that the current generation should not saddle the next generation with the costs of its own mistakes, be they environmental, social or fiscal. And I can see a new debate emerging in British politics in the coming months in which Conservatives show that we offer long term inter-generational fairness in contrast to a government willing to mortgage the country for its own short term survival."

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2008/08/George_Osborne_On_Fairness.aspx

Still want to claim that only left-wing parties talk about fairness? Haldraper (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the substantive policy differences between the two underlying formulations of fairness, what you found is a speech by one member of the party. That's great, but it doesn't make a trend. The Lib Dems have adopted the concept as the party platform (essentially), which reveals far more about their ideological inclinations than some speech ever could. On the other hand, I don't see the Conservatives making fairness the centerpiece of their election!UberCryxic (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about moving the goalposts! When I say "every party in Britain claims to believe in "fairness", you accuse me of talking "bollocks". When I show you a speech entitled 'On Fairness' from the Conservative website you say it's just a "speech by one member of the party", yes the Shadow Chancellor who may well be in charge of the British economy in three months time!

There are "substantive policy differences between the two underlying formulations of fairness"? Yes, but did I claim otherwise?

"The Lib Dems have adopted the concept as the party platform (essentially), which reveals far more about their ideological inclinations than some speech ever could."

Well that's not something we can judge based on words but rather, as the article does, on their policy shifts from left to right since 2003.

"On the other hand, I don't see the Conservatives making fairness the centerpiece of their election!"

Why not? Osborne's already made it the centrepiece of a speech, I can easily see Cameron picking it up as a theme. Haldraper (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your last question: for one (major) reason, they're conservatives, ergo inherently against any concepts like fairness and equality. Osborne's speech is obviously silly pandering, but I didn't want to get into the politics of it all. What I do want to get into is the academic sources, and I now have several from the last decade placing them as center-left. The best option here seems to be calling them bother centrist and center-left.UberCryxic (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please be careful when you revert next time. You reverted another user's edits about ideological position, but you also reverted my (mostly cosmetic) edits that had nothing to do with that fight.UberCryxic (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented in the talk page, and I sincerely hope that you would acknowledge the viewpoint of other academic sources.UberCryxic (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss it in the talk page. See my suggestions.UberCryxic (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I find it really funny that you accused me of pushing my "conservative POV," given that I hate conservatism from the "c" to the "m". If you spent two seconds looking at my profile, you would see that I'm a liberal.UberCryxic (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a book is available on Google is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you have a hard copy of the book, use it!UberCryxic (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you two more books in the talk page calling the party "left-of-centre" and "left-liberal." Go discredit them before I add some other ones.UberCryxic (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One major difference between you and I in this fight has been that you constantly attempt to analyze and interpret the sources whereas I simply regurgitate what the sources say directly. If it says center-left, I say center-left. If it says centrist, I say centrist. Now you're doing it again in the History section. The history article cited never says the words 'center' or 'centrist'. I apologize for accusing you of adding that stuff in there, but just because it wasn't you doesn't make it any more right. Moderate and third force, by contrast, do appear in the article, and hence it makes more sense to include them. Let's say what the sources say, not what we want the sources to say.UberCryxic (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your new version. Good job.UberCryxic (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hal. Please see User_talk:Jeff79#.22Rugby_Football_Leagues.22.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, by my pronoun I did not imply you were wrong to remove unverified material. However, you did not just add a reference in that edit, you also removed a completely separate sentence and didn't put this in the edit summary. I would not have removed the journal reference had this been a seperate edit. I do, however, object to you removing any mention of the other Australian states. Not mentioning them would be unbalanced, violating WP:NPOV. I am well aware of WP:V, as I am also aware of the need for balanced writing. This was the part I did want to revert. In future, please seperate edits instead of mixing them together. GW(talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added centrist per our agreement in the talk page, but don't forget to add the citations for it. That's your responsibility since you wanted that label in there.UberCryxic (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper, about "I think as a Catholic you suffer from the same problem I know I lapse (no pun intended) into: regarding personal opinions as facts, unfortunately it was part of the training."[3][4]

It's better not to speculate on anyone's problems. Though I'm sure you don't intend it to be taken offensively, this kind of remark is disruptive, and unnecessary. I hope we can all keep the discussion focused on content, not other people. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken. As a fellow (albeit lapsed) Catholic, I was referring as much to myself as to Xandar. Haldraper (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me confess both my joy and surprise that you actually agreed with my edits. What is this world coming to? Second of all, fill me in on this house of horrors. Why was the article protected? I notice the arbitration, but obviously I haven't been there long enough to understand what caused it or why it wasn't avoided. Does this article need a little bit of my stalinism for some proper sense of direction? Uncle Joe never disappoints.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Joe would be proud of some of the Catholic editors: anything unsavoury in the Church's history is either excised, excused or buried under qualifications and apologetics. The current PP is the result of a long discussion that established consensus to trim much of the Catholic POV from the History section. One of the Catholic editors Nancy, who has definite WP:OWN issues, sat the discussion out, bided her time and has just reappeared to reinsert it all again. Haldraper (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains a few things! At least the introductory sentence in there now has some proper sense of balance about the number of Catholics worldwide. I think my sources are fairly solid and I'll defend them in the talk page. I will present more sources to the editors in the future, and hopefully those can permanently squelch this debate on the side of that magical thing called evidence. Uncle Joe demands nothing less.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have more coming, but I want to wait a little bit and see how things develop. If we're still deadlocked, I'll pull a Lib Dem and flood the talk page with reputable sources that clearly show the number of Catholics worldwide is anything but certain.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now witnessed significant improvements and I would like to thank you for your participation in this difficult journey. We now have a much smaller, compact article (118 kb as of now, down from 190 kb) with a lighter TOC and more rational categorization. More importantly, a certain sense of stability has finally returned. Much more still has to be done in terms of content and POV, although other users have now taken care of many of these issues already. I am quite surprised that you told me to go away initially. The article has undergone much-needed fundamental changes that two years of squabbling had failed to produce. Never underestimate your Uncle Joe. I think what happened here was much more painless than our brutal fight over the Lib Dems, which lasted just as long and only involved one sentence in the lead. Anyway, I don't care to repeat either experience again, but both articles have come off better as a result.UBER ^(talk) 07:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please check the new references added to the article and reconsider its POV status. Cheers.Excelsior Deo (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for writing what you did when Taam and I got banned the other day at Catholic Church talk. I appreciated it. Sayerslle (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been unprotected, the straw poll has been declared dead, and I have gone ahead and implemented the new version of the article, per majority consensus. The final vote when the straw poll was declared dead was 11-7 (61% in favor of the new version). Please see the talk page for more details. Thank you in advance for your cooperation through these difficult times.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rooting for them obviously, but I just hope Labour punishes those right-wing fascists goose-stepping behind Herr Cameron. Who are you rooting for?UBER ^(talk) 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only MP's I'm really 'rooting for' are the LRC ones like John McDonnell. However, I will still vote Labour given their (albeit much reduced) link to the trade unions. Haldraper (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I hope it ends well. I'm following events over there very closely.UBER ^(talk) 16:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't know if you heard, but Yorkshirian has been banned indefinitely.UBER ^(talk) 06:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had heard. I think he was banned before for quite a while and only let back last year on the condition he behaved himself. Haldraper (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to read this piece in the Guardian.UBER ^(talk) 02:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uber, just this minute read it over breakfast in the paper and was about to let you know! Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on delinking the term "works team" in the Manchester United F.C. article? This is not a term that most readers will be familiar with, so it makes perfect sense for the link to be present. – PeeJay 11:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I delinked it because I thought it was "a term that most readers will be familiar with" but if not, fine, let it stand. Haldraper (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep hacking at the lead of this article. It very recently was promoted to a featured article, and no one raised concerns about the lead there, so I don't understand what the problem with it is. Tom (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the final paragraph essentially repeated the preceding one. "no one has raised concerns before" isn't a valid argument for not attempting to improve the lead. what do you think of it as it stands now? Haldraper (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholic sex abuse cases. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper: Please discuss the reasons for your changes. You are removing important and relevant information again.

• Applewhite's comments pertain to context and NOT inaccuracies.
• Jenkins' comment pertain to inaccuracies in the term "pedophile" that was used liberally by media.

Why are your edits (or most accurately, deletions) confined to only the Criticisms of Media Coverage section? Why do you keep deleting important and relevant criticisms of media coverage? Are you from one of those media or sent by them? joo (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because none of the deleted material discussed media coverage, as I said in my edit summary. Haldraper (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholic sex abuse cases. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Morenooso (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this DIFF as actions concerning your edits are taking place at that noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if this was me, I would take a moment to reflect upon this situation. You may not have been fully aware that your actions too could be considered to be edit-warring. And, while you may disagree either with my analysis or post, you may want to consider that as per the generic 3RR advisory substitute warning given to you that you have a responsiblity to be considerate of your edits and reverts as they may affect other editors. Be fully prepared as edit-warring is a bright line that most NEUTRAL admins will not tolerate. If this was me again and got blocked (I do not know you will but you should be prepared for just about anything), take it as a WP:COOL off and take some time off to clear your head and not think about the matter. --Morenooso (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be considerable turmoil at Catholic sex abuse cases‎. Please don't add to it by aggressive editing. Encyclopedia writing should be a collegial activity, and this site has policies that require civility. Edit warring and similar activities are prohibited and may result in a suspension of editing privileges. I urge you to use the article talk page to seek consensus. If you are having difficulty working with the other editors then please make use of the site's dispute resolution forums. See WP:DR for more information.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to give more than 2 minutes after you've made a comment on the talk page to change the article. That isn't giving people a fair chance to respond. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy about it, as you might imagine. I doubt it will last too long either. You'll probably have another election this year or next year.UBER ^(talk) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that Von Beyme's party classification system remains valid, and that classifying parties according to policies is misleading. TFD (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uber, I'm sorry to say I think you're wrong: I can see no reason why the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition won't last the whole five years. Haldraper (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on the discussion page as above, where I am suggesting that, in order to read more clearly, the first paragraph about Baroness Symons could be better reverting to her being a trade union leader, rather than not only naming the trade union, but naming it incorrectly. It doesn't read well at the moment. Guineveretoo (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church#Long_version.   — Jeff G.  ツ 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what a Roman Catholic perspective on the Crimean wars would be..Why it was not only OK to use the sultan to take away the Holy Sepulchre church from the Orthodox but for the Orthodox Russians to be killed by European forces while trying to liberate Constantinople from Muslim rule. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the South African Rugby Union's website, 'League' has been a professional sport for which the players were paid for playing since 1895. and Rugby union was a strictly amateur sport until 1995.... According to a 1907 edition of a New Zealand newspaper, As we subscribe to the English Rugby Union (strictly amateur)it is impossible for.... I'm replacing mention of the RFU being strictly amateur in the introductory paragraph of the rugby league article as it succinctly communicates an issue that was central to the league/union split.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The South African RU's website is not an independent source. Read the section about the split on the History of rugby league page that contradicts the 1907 newspaper article and talks about the hypocrisy of the RFU that had paid players before 1895. There are plenty of sources to suggest that rather than being 'strictly amateur' rugby union continued secretly paying players until it became openly professional like league in 1995. One of the reasons it did so was the beginning of investigations into those secret payments by the tax authorities. Haldraper (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of 'shamateurism'. But obviously the second sentence of an article about rugby league is not the place. You're welcome to add it (with references) elsewhere.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've copied this discussion and added a comment at Talk:Rugby league, as is seems the best place to discuss article content. LunarLander // talk // 18:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Holt's bitter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AaronRodgers27 (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As i stated to a senior editor..., "On the Liverpool FC article, i broadened and improved what was a short lede using cited material. I used the same IFFHS reference as is used on Juventus, Real Madrid, AC Milan articles... recent success as is used on a great number of featured club articles...the clubs home colours as is used on a great number of featured articles, the clubs home city as is used on a great number of featured articles. I thoroughly researched other club articles, following a precedent to ensure the material was valid. The user Haldraper unjustifiably removed this with clear breach of bias,. used "fan" as a reason (irrelevant but i support Cardiff City).. a user who edits on Manchester United (made a lede edit referring to them solely as "United"). Please ensure this user does not continue to make invalid removal of researched, cited material. Thankyou". The opening line of WP:Vandalism states Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia Please cease.--AaronRodgers27 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you have made contributions to the Featherstone article. The current rugby league club, Featherstone Rovers, wasn't founded until 1902, and appears to have no links to the earlier rugby union (RU) club. However, I have contributed to an article about James "Jimmy" Metcalfe, and I have found details of him playing for Yorkshire (RU) in 1896/7 while playing at Featherstone (RU), would you have any information about the RU club of the 1800s in Featherstone. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently changed the Wigan Warriors article to bring it back in line with the consensus regarding location (from 'Lancashire' to 'Greater Manchester'). The consensus, as it stands, is to list current (post 1975) Met Borough/Counties in the lead and mention historical boundaries later in the article. Thank you. Man2 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haldraper. You have new messages at Talk: Catholic Church.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Cjmclark ^(Contact) 12:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I noticed that you had linked the article on Lightnin Slim w/ the article on "Louisiana Swamp Blues." The "LSB" article cites no references and makes all sorts of dubious assertions. I intend to nominate it for deletion. Katie Webster refered to herself as the "Queen of Swamp Boogie," & I suppose that's the origin of this term. It's not accepted musicology to anybody I know of. I removed the link from the article on L Slim, and added language that groups him w/ Excello Records Louisiana artists. Have a look and Cheers! Tapered (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the wording in Brewing#Cool fermenting - see what you think. It is appropriate, though, to keep an explanation in the foreground about bottom fermenting, as Bottom-fermenting (and other alternatives) direct to that section, and readers might be puzzled if they didn't get an explanation about bottom fermenting, and why it is today no longer considered an appropriate description. Even though slightly higher up in the article there is a more detailed explanation about bottom and top fermentation, cool and warm, lager and ale, people don't always (or usually) read an encyclopaedia article from top to bottom - they are reference articles, designed to be consulted in sections, so need to be able to stand alone when consulted for bottom fermenting or cool fermenting - especially when those terms redirect to that specific section.

The whole nature of what is an "ale" can be tricky as some people tend to think of an ale as a style of beer different to stout and mild, while others will see ale as any warm fermented beer which would include most stouts and milds, and others yet may still want to abide by the old understanding of ale as an unhopped beer (beer itself being the hopped variety!). I assume that when you gave the edit summary of "not all top-fermented beers are ales" that is was stouts and milds you were thinking of. In an article on brewing in general (rather than an article on beer styles, or an article on the history of beer) then the sense of ale as being a warm fermented beer seems the most appropriate, and that is the sense in which the sources are discussing "ale" and "ale yeast". I think it's important to remember that these articles are designed for the common reader, rather than any specialist, and so using the same terms as the sources, and the terms that the readers are most likely to understand and be familiar with is going to be helpful. This may cause someone like yourself, who clearly knows a bit about beer, to be a bit uncomfortable and wish to look for more precise definitions that fit your own personal understanding - however, we have to bear the readership in mind, and aim to be as helpful and informative as possible.

Any queries or further thoughts on this matter, please drop me a note on my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I have no particular stake in what version of English is used in the Catholic Church article. Reading through it, the vast majority (as it was most recently written) was in American English, so I edited it accordingly. If you want to have the whole thing in British English, that's fine. I don't think it matters in this case which is used or why, so long as one of them is used consistently throughout. Thanks.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haldraper. You have new messages at Talk:Catholic Church.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least explain your changes to the article. Reducing the lead to barely 100 words does not adequately summarise the article. Nev1 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be a bit longer but the original lead was way too detailed.Haldraper (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which points would you leave out? It certainly seems relevant to mention when it was founded and under what circumstances, when the club played it's first match, significant landmarks such as the first professional captain, the players with most runs and wickets, dropping to the second division and returning. All of this was hacked straight out. I don't believe it went into too much detail at all; it covered the main points and left the bulk of the detail in the body of the article. Does four hundred words across two paragraphs certainly seem like an excessively long lead for a 4,000-word article? Nev1 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have reverted my edit to City of Manchester Stadium. I disagree with your revert as it could be confused with the Etihad Stadium in Melbrone, they are both sponsored my Etihad so it could be possible to confuse them. When you Google Etihad Stadium it doesnt actually take you to the Etihad Stadium page. Someone who wants to find information on google about either stadium could come across the wrong one, so its very likely they can get mixed up between the 2. --JetBlast (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the Melbourne one does come up first on Google. I've linked the words Etihad Stadium to the Wiki dismabiguation page. Haldraper (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Noel Gallagher. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.--Michig (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haldraper. Thank you. Michig (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Noel Gallagher and Liam Gallagher are not constructive. If you continue to make these changes you are likely to be blocked.--Michig (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't already clear, you need to gain consensus on the talk pages of these articles rather than continually reverting. Let me know which part of that sentence you don't understand.--Michig (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning for edit warring. If you revert again you will be blocked. Please discuss the issue on the talk page and reach consensus.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick message regarding your recent edits to Wigan Warriors page. There is an established consensus regarding the lead and the inclusion of Greater Manchester which you will see on the discussion page. Please respect this. I have mentioned this to you on a previous occasion. Is there some specific reason why you don't want Greater Manchester included in the lead?? It is clear that including Greater Manchester allows for international audiences to be given a geographical frame of reference when looking at the article - i.e. the fact that Wigan is in the vicinity of Manchester. If you feel the article could be improved in relation to the inclusion of GM then please contribute to the discussion on the discussion page. Many thanks Man2 (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am mystified why you removed this section as it was referenced. Could you explain what you were doing? --John (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable independent sources for the claims about freezing and Guinness FES/Samuel Adams IS being similar to Russian Imperial Stout, not commercial websites of companies involved in selling their products. Haldraper (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we? Why's that, then? --John (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy: WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT. Haldraper (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at the former (incidentally, it's a guideline, not a policy) we see: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources."

--John (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is there is "reasonable doubt as to [the] authenticity" of the claims, which is why I asked for reliable, independent sources. Haldraper (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to a discussion regarding Sepp Blatter, please see the talk page. Regards IJA (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have reverted your change, again, to the Alan Green (broadcaster) article. If you read the cite you will see that this "fact" (and leads should be factual) merely amounts to a reporter suggesting that Green was "presumably trying – with minimal success – to maintain an air of neutrality". This does not mean that Wikipeida can report that he has allegiance to Liverpool. Indeed, suggesting so would be a violation of policy on biographies of living persons, as it suggests a lack of professionalism on his part. If anything, all it can be used to cite is that "Ian Herbert of the Independent is of the opinion that....". I do not see Herbert's opinion being of such significance that it should be in the lead of this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper, you're greatly exceeded WP:3RR on Old Trafford, on what must be the daftest edit war of the week. The edits you were reverting clearly weren't vandalism, so I've blocked you from editing. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finlay, that's fair enough. I did get a bit carried away and exceeded 3RR. Haldraper (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're far too reasonable, Haldraper. It's four against one over there. You have my sympathies for having to face a Nev1/J3Mrs onslaught. Parrot's just a stooge. Just glad I was not in her class at skewl. Did you know she's actually Nev1's mum? 86.169.19.41 (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Haldraper.

I notice you've moved the English Democrats Party to a new article title. I think there will have to be a sit down and think about it moment with them, to be honest, because there's a number of redirects and what not that's really complicating matters. Look at Bristol_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency), for example, where the name which generates a party colour and link is just "English Democrats". Thanks to the redirect, people can just type in "English Democrats" but users who want to work around that may now feel it necessary to type the extra words (political party). Do you think there should be a redirect avoidance editing blitz? Or shall we just leave it for now? doktorb _words^deeds 02:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! It's been on my watchlist for aeons, and every time I contemplated trying to clean the article up I got distracted by Real Life. Next stop panini (sandwich) (shouldn't that be panino (sandwich)?) And then there's panino and pannini..... Best. --GuillaumeTell 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just to explain a partial undoing of your recent edits - it's significant that the paper moved away from CPGB line, hence I've put something of the sort back in. asnac (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have mentioned you at the discussion board regarding Wine, though the main issue is with another editor. I am posting this here just to keep you in the loop. Encycloshave (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 1 week for edit warring at Liberal Democrats. This article was previously protected to stop you from edit warring and the blocking admin encouraged you to raise the dispute on the article talk page. Instead of doing this you waited for the protection to expire and then resumed the edit war. I note that you have been blocked previously for edit warring, please stop this behaviour—future blocks will be longer than this one. —Jeremy (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted a new section at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases#Does 'Third Reich 1933-1945' really belong here, which you might be informed on. You were engaged in the issue in the past and I's like to see if there is any consensus on how to move forward. Insomesia (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick Marquis, 1st Earl of Woolton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salford (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) 09:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 219.83.101.200 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline the report, but I don't want to see any more reverts between you and the other editor on how to phrase the first sentence of the American football article. Putting aside the silliness of the dispute, I see NO discussion on the talk page. If you want to fight with each other, do it there. If you can't reach a consensus, then take it to dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removal of sourced information at India Pale Ale, and I've started a discussion on the talk page regarding the issue. Please participate. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction as it is (which I have restored) is a standard one that is used commonly in all UK articles. I have to point out that you have been edit-warring in the past, and I hope you do not revert this again without discussion, or some penalty will ensue. Your edit is clearly contentious, so merely re-instating it is not advisable for you to do.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion about it on the talk page: Talk:Little Bollington. You are welcome to contribute there first rather than make any further changes until some consensus is achieved.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for about 2 weeks before you resume edit-warring is not ideal. I have reverted your edit and protected the article until you can explain yourself on the article's talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Haldraper, this edit summary is not indicative of a collaborative editing spirit by any stretch of the imagination. Adding material without a reference and then warning others that they cannot revert with a threat of pulling articles apart is not on, and makes it harder for me to assume your working in good faith on issues like Talk:Manchester city centre - very hard infact. For me, a dying breed it seems, Wikipedia is based on published source material - it's a the winning formula - and coming to edit from that perspective will help you/us/this project go forwards not backwards. Anyone can rightfully remove unsourced material, and anyone in the future can (and surely will) add mentions of Salford to Manchester city centre because it's in a book/website/planning document etc. I'd like your buy-in that myself and others are working within the rules, not bending them. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salford (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) 10:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to North Midlands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• loosely-defined area of [[England]]. It is typically held to include [[South Yorkshire]]{{dubious}}} and the northern districts of [[Derbyshire]] and [[Nottinghamshire]], and in some definitions also

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Peter O'Toole". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted your addition of the Football League to the Manchester article. I'm not suggesting that the information is wrong, but there is nothing about it in the main text of the article so it shouldn't be in the lead. If you want to add something to the lead of an article - particularly a featured article - you must first check that it's in the text and, if it isn't, add some referenced information in the body of the article first. Otherwise the information in the lead is unreferenced and doesn't reflect what's in the article. Richerman (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your change looks like change-for-changes-sake. Why change the number from what the ref says? Why change 'believers' to 'members'. (It has been both words at times in the past). Saying "(members/number)" does not explain anything. And given the mentions of the article in your talk page, it sure looks like merely thumbing your nose at someone, and for no good reason. Shenme (talk)