User talk:SovalValtos/Archives/2021/April
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
(WP:RECENTISM)
I am puzzled to understand how your edit summary/summaries apply to your reverting me at Aberdyfi and at Haverfordwest. Surely, being out of service for 50+ years invokes the opposite?
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Gareth Griffith-Jones by removing a 'See also' link to a closed power station you were unbalancing the article in favour of recent material at the expense of old.SovalValtos (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- But the See also had only just been added to each article. I considered that improvements had not been made.
Are we to expect now that every place article is to have a referral to its ancient power-generating stations?
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)- WP:RECENTISM is not about how recently material has been added. Removing a link because you consider 1960 as ancient and presumably thefore not relevant is. I consider the link to have helped the aim toward a long-term, historical view. Gareth Griffith-Jones your edit summary "Why? The power station was decommissioned in the 1960s" did little to explain why you "considered that improvements had not been made". You may consider 1960 to be an ancient time, not me, just part of history. There are even readers who were alive then! We are lucky to have editors such as User:Alnitak3 making such substantial contributions to subjects associated with Wales.SovalValtos (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the trouble to explain this. Just to explain my late reply, this is my first use of my pc since 11:19, October 29.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)- Certainly not "ancient"!
You regard the 1960s as history, whereas having been born in 1942, I take the opposite view: part of the present. Cheers!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)- Respect to you both for your patience, from one who may be in between somewhere? Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly not "ancient"!
- Thank you for taking the trouble to explain this. Just to explain my late reply, this is my first use of my pc since 11:19, October 29.
- WP:RECENTISM is not about how recently material has been added. Removing a link because you consider 1960 as ancient and presumably thefore not relevant is. I consider the link to have helped the aim toward a long-term, historical view. Gareth Griffith-Jones your edit summary "Why? The power station was decommissioned in the 1960s" did little to explain why you "considered that improvements had not been made". You may consider 1960 to be an ancient time, not me, just part of history. There are even readers who were alive then! We are lucky to have editors such as User:Alnitak3 making such substantial contributions to subjects associated with Wales.SovalValtos (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- But the See also had only just been added to each article. I considered that improvements had not been made.
S4C weather team
https://www.s4c.cymru/en/press/post/39426/alex-humphreys-joins-s4cs-weather-crew/
Alex Humphreys Megan Williams Steffan Griffiths
These 3 weather Presenters take it in turns Monday-Sunday S4C Weather via Newyddion Programme Penfold1982 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please discuss on the article talk page Penfold1982, not here. They do not seem to be notable in Wikipedia terms so should not be included in the list. They have no articles so WP:WTAF. They would need citing as well with an independent source.SovalValtos (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Anything I can Help With?
SHANNON13ALB (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good to see you are keen SHANNON13ALB. It is difficult to get things right to start with as there are many policy pitfalls such as you have already discovered with copyright and how pages should be laid out. Wikipedia:Manual of Style is helpful. I would suggest avoiding editing subjects with which you have a relationship. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Dorking
Hi SovalValtos!
As you know, I have been working on the Dorking article over the past couple of months. I’ve now reached the stage where I have exhausted the books and other resources that are available to me at home, but I think I am fairly happy with the overall structure and scope. There are some uncited points, but I will not be able to address these until I have access to the library. I was wondering if you would be willing to look through the article and to make any amendments that you see fit? (I will ask others to do the same.) Please let me know if there are areas which you think are not properly covered and if there are parts which are too detailed.
I would like to submit this for WP:GAN at some stage (but I think this will have to be after the pandemic is over). In the meantime I would be grateful if you would consider grading the article for WP:Surrey. It is currently rated as C class, but I am hoping that it is now sufficiently complete to be B class.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- As a TPS, I think it is looking very impressive indeed! If you’re taking it to PR, or further, I’d be pleased to have a more detailed look. KJP1 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @KJP1:! Do feel free to have a thorough look through the article as well. I asked @SovalValtos: as I know they are familiar with the town, but it would be great to have your experienced eyes as well! As I say, I can't really make any further progress content-wise until the libraries reopen, so it would be good to take stock of where the article is at the moment. All being well, I would like to submit it for WP:GAN in late Spring (assuming that lockdown ends by that time...) Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mertbiol I thought your valuable additions would never end! Certainly I will have a look now I know you are pausing. Proof-reading and coverage featuring. Grading is not something I have ever done so I will leave that to another. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @KJP1:! Do feel free to have a thorough look through the article as well. I asked @SovalValtos: as I know they are familiar with the town, but it would be great to have your experienced eyes as well! As I say, I can't really make any further progress content-wise until the libraries reopen, so it would be good to take stock of where the article is at the moment. All being well, I would like to submit it for WP:GAN in late Spring (assuming that lockdown ends by that time...) Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)