Philburton

Welcome!

Hello, Philburton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Mcginnly | Natter 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No original research

I'm afraid that even if you are a ringer in the tower, you must provide reliable citable evidence of your claims - this is one of the cornerstones of wikipedia - please read Wikipedia:No original research and reconsider your edits to this section. I'll gladly offer any advice you need, but the information needs to be both notable and reliable - saying joe blogs doesn't like something in the built environment is unlikely to be considered notable. If it's not notable enough for the chronicle - it's even less likely to be notable enough for wikipedia. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

reply

But you're talking to someone with vast experience in this field. I changed the article to adhere to POV rules, but just because there is no citable information of any kind doesn't make it any less important. The tower is a landmark, it is an eyesore, it has been vandalised, it is of modern design, chester is an historic city - such statements are of course based on opinions, but are widely accepted as fact, and surely don't need backing up with citations. The section of the article on the bells and tower provides reliable, relevant and concise information about the cathedral bells and tower, the acoustics etc. Stating that something needs to make a local newspaper to be notable is a bit OTT. Indeed, it probably has [what hasnt?], but I reiterate the information is correct, reliable and relevant - the world of bells, towers etc is a very secretive one. I am only able to speak about the central tower in such detail because I have been up there, one of only a handful of people alive who have. The modern tower, again, only a handful of people have access and have the knowledge I have, which makes the sharing of that information all the more important - isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?

I'm afraid it's one of the paradoxes of wikipedia that even if you are a living albert einstein - you'd still have to cite the General theory of relativity in the article - it's not enough to be expert, you need to cite published sources - please read the policy. With minimal research I found a website - now added to the references section - that explains, in some detail, the history of the tower and the original bells (despite the secretive habits of campanologists), whilst not fitting the best example of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it's not bad and the information therein can be added to the article. Also you might want to reconsider such sweeping statements of 'fact' about 'eyesores' - one mans eyesore is anothers great building and the addition of such opinions to wikipedia articles definitely needs sourcing, it is not OTT, it is wikipedias policy.

I'd love to see the article on Chester Cathedral reach Featured article quality. It's my local cathedral and a source of endless fascination to me - I think I'll add a paragraph about the choir carving this weekend - but what I write will need to be sourced - perhaps we could collaborate, but you'll need to tone down such opinionated material to make it work. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

here's an extract from Wikipedia:Five pillars:-

"Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcginnly (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

question

What do the green or red + or - numbers mean on the watchlist? Philburton 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They tell you how many bytes of information has been added or subtracted for each edit. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The motorhouse

Phil, I've deleted The motorhouse under speedy deletion criteria G11. Marasmusine (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear conflict with the carcraft page. PhilBurton

Okay, I've had chance to look at Carcraft. I've removed some minor peacock terms but otherwise the article is neutral in tone. So I can't see a conflict. Marasmusine (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Carcraft article is different because there is secondary coverage in a newspaper (The Manchester Evening News) concerning big figure business deals. This is not the case with any of the various incarnations of The Motorhouse - they are essentially just ads that do not discuss why the business is notable, and just seem designed to get link exposure for the company's various business units. Note also that other, similar questionable articles existing is not normally taken to being a good enough reason to keep or restore an article. If you really want to have the article restored, I suggest you list it at deletion review. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

Thats a really, really weak reason for justifying Carcraft - I could find a dozen newspaper articles about Motorhouse. Does Carcraft discuss what the business is? I don't think so. Motorhouse is an entity with far more relevance to the market than Carcraft, and as such should be included. The tone of the article is neutral specifically because it is not to be advertised. Stop being a jobsworth and reinstate the article. Philburton (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, these are the policies that the community here has come to a consensus on. Again, if you feel that I'm being too harsh or that my deletion was wrong, I invite you to have the deletion reviewed by the community at the Deletion Review page. If it's determined that I have acted in error, the article will be restored and you will be able to continue working on it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

Speedy deletion of The Motorhouse

A tag has been placed on The Motorhouse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Booglamay (talk) - 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Motus

A tag has been placed on Motus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Booglamay (talk) - 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)