User talk:Ebonelm/archive1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ebonelm. 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.

Thank you for correcting the UK 1906 election edit and moving it to December 1910! Should've checked closer. Crazy Eddy (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem Crazy Eddy! Ebonelm (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ebonelm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ebonelm, can we discuss what parts of the Floor Slip Resistance Testing page you find to be lacking in Wikipedia-style tone, and why this well-written article needs to be completely re-written? The writers of this page are considered two of the world's greatest experts on this subject (widely published both in book form and technical and magazine articles on floor safety) and the article is very well-written and has been visited by almost every other floor slip testing expert on the planet and has been endorsed by them. We are in regular contact with all those experts. I believe the article is written so that the common person can understand it, and I don't see anything wrong with the tone. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what sort of statements of internationally accepted facts you see as poorly written? If we need to discuss this without anonymity, we would be happy to do that. If you are familiar with floor slip testing, then you will be familiar with us and our reputation. Just let me know and I'll reveal who we are. I have been very busy lately trying to keep this page from being molested by people with an obvious vested interest in promoting their product, or slip tester. The facts on this page are internationally accepted facts validated through extensive research, and there is no valid argument that has been presented by anonymous editors that has not been researched by us to determine whether it has any validity or not. Each edit by these anonymous people has been a blatant attempt to get their instrument, which has NOT been accepted by the international slip testing community, some clout when they have no evidence or references to prove it has some clout. Please let me know if you are just another one of those editors that is angry that I am not allowing this well-written and very informative and fact-based page which has been reviewed by almost every true internationally-recognized slip testing expert on the planet to be molested by people with financial interests in exaggerating and making things up to make financial gains in this industry, or if you are truly a slip testing expert. If you will reveal yourself, then we can have an honest discussion about what sort of problems you have with this article instead of just adding things with no references which are NOT accepted in the international community. I do not need you to reveal your true identity...that's just an idea I had if you'd like to figure out if this article is written by an expert or hack. Please discuss with me what your problems are with this article instead of simply trying your best to make it look bad without saying ANYTHING about what is specifically wrong with it. Thank you. Jack Trumpet (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jack Trumpet. Its clear that you are very passionate about your field. By placing these templates on the page I am in no way trying to make the article look 'bad' and I would ask you to retract such a statement. I am also in no way making a judgement on the quality of the work by other users and leave it to those with more experience in the field to determine this. As it is I am quite content with your own decision to vet the work of other contributers. As for my identity I have no interest in revealing it here, I also do not see any way this help either of us, if for some reason you believe I am a competitor to you I can assure you I am not, though I do wonder as to why you would feel the need to place your reputation in the hands of a Wikipedia article in the first place if you are actually so respected. I am also not editing this article as an anonymous editor.

As for the problems I find with the article, they are indicated by the templates I have placed on the page. I will give you some examples in order to help articulate my reasons.

The article lacks an encylcopedic tone. For example you write: "To assess a floor's slip resistance, we first need a reliable, thoroughly researched (in interlaboratory studies) floor friction test method, and then we will want a minimum safety criterion (0.43, 0.60, 36, etc.) to apply to the results". The use of "we" is not an encyclopedic tone and makes it read like a 'how to guide'. In most cases 'how to' articles are not relevant to an encylcopedia and would be deleted however in this case it is clear that it is more than a how to guide. My proposed solution for sentences such as the one I quoted above would be: "A floor slip resistance is measured using a floor friction test method. Depending on the cirumstance a miniumum safety criteria, e.g 0.43, 0.60 etc. is set". I am aware this is not a perfect replacement sentence but it is only a quick example.

Similarly sentences can be too technical, sentences such as "A tribometer with international approval will have been found to correlate well with Variable-Angle ramp results, have an official standard, and be able to provide a reasonable precision statement as well as having passed the ASTM F2508-13 test" while understandable require a high level of concentration and needs to be simplified and possibly broken up into different senteances to make it easier to understand.

To further highlight the issues with Floor Slip Resistance Testing I wish to draw your attention to your other article Sustainable Slip Resistance, this article is written beautifully and does not need any changes as far as I am concerned. Please compare your two articles and you will see that they have very different tones, one of which is suitable for Wikipedia and the other one isn't.

Anyway I hope that this clears up why I added the templates to your article. Please feel free to ask any more questions. Ebonelm (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ebonelm, I just find it very hard to believe that you are not a competitor since about a half hour after I removed some edits blatantly done by someone trying to promote the Brungraber Mark 3B for personal gain, then you "suddenly" appear with all kinds of issues with this article that has been up for YEARS now. Your timing with these issues is very suspicious, indeed. Anyway, I will make some edits to the article in hopes it will meet your approval and be more "Wiki-worthy" like the other article I have posted, which has also been there for years without anyone saying it had the issues you say Floor Slip Resistance Testing now has years after it was first published. I wish you luck with the Brungraber Mark IIIB and hope you can get it approved and accepted by the international community...there is no such thing presently as a "perfect tribometer", but I welcome tribometers that have scientific value. It is almost 2am in the UK. Have a nice sleep! Jack Trumpet (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I must confess, Ebonhelm seems to be correct here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.141.240 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do declare, by golly, that changes were made to this article many, many months ago to address Ebonhelms "issues" with this article. Would this anonymous user like to expound on his or her comment? It seems that people trying to push for the English XL and the Brungraber Mark IIIB to be considered valid scientific instruments are often shady characters that try to make strange comments on Wiki pages...but there is no research to back up thos instruments....so their proponents make strange comments on Wiki pages for no apparent reason with nothing to back up their comments. The tribometers that are discussed within this article have documentation and references to the research that validates their use. If you'd like to add something intelligent to this page, please discuss those changes and any research you have to back up changes to this page. To my knowledge, this page is agreed upon by the international community of reliable and trustworthy slip testing experts to be valid and up-to-date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Trumpet (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're back at it, eh, Ebonelm? It's been a long time now. This time you're just going to erase 95% of the article and call that an "edit"? This article has been edited and reviewed by slip resistance testing experts around the globe and found to be very useful and informative and easy to understand and backed by decades of research. The tribometers discussed have valid current official test methods and this article is helping building managers, specifiers, tile manufacturers, slip and fall lawyers, architects, floor maintenance companies, building owners, and many other types of people involved in the flooring industry understand the current state of floor slip testing and how to get real answers to whether or not a particular type of flooring is appropriate for its intended use. The #1 reason people in the USA go to the emergency room is for slip and fall accidents according to the National Safety Council. This article is helping people in charge of flooring projects to choose appropriate tiles and keep people out of hospital beds. This article has been up for years and, like I said, had been reviewed by most of the most respected leaders in this industry and found to be relevant, factual, and well written. Why would you want to simply erase 95% of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Trumpet (talk • contribs) 21:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collingwood College. 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) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

- Please refrain from stalking me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridgeway481 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 March 2015; moved here by FourViolas (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that accusations of stalking may constitute a personal attack. Your edits have been reverted due to their disruptive nature and may constitute vandalism. If you wish to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia then your edits will not be reverted. I however reserve the right to revert any edit which appears to be vandalism. Please also be aware that you personal attack will be used as evidence against you if you continue to vandalise Wikipedia and that you will be blocked. Ebonelm (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how the external link templates work. The "title" field is only to be used when the title differs from the display title. Please undo this edit as it is redundant to have the title parameter filled in if it matches the article title. It's purely a technical thing, and doesn't have any impact on what is shown on screen unless the article is moved, in which case it will then automatically update with the new article title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

My mistake I had not realised that your third edit was different to the first two you had made, I will self-revert. I would however like to emphasise that renaming within any part of an article should not take place while a naming discussion is taking place and would like to draw your attention to my edit which highlights this on the relevant talk page. Ebonelm (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Would you care to explain this at the discussion I had openedd at Talk:Oceania#Internal and external dependencies? Thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestion and contribution to discussing a move of the article Beslan school hostage crisis. Are you able to do the move, or advise me how to do it? --Flexdream (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Flexdream, I'm glad that you liked the suggestion. As 'involved editors' we're not meant to do the move, we have to wait for an uninvolved admin. Only admins would be able to move over a redirect. Maybe ask User:Anthony Appleyard who appears to be fulfilling a lot of uncontroversial move requests at the moment. Ebonelm (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Check ITV News Website its says that David Cameron has Appointed George Osborne to Deputy Prime Minister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deakin1992 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It states that he has been appointed First Secretary of State. Ebonelm (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of these changes; most people understand the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom gains his position via Indirect election. The fact that he isn't directly elected doesn't really matter since he does gain his position as a result of the general election. Cutting out any mention of the election is using an overly narrow definition of "elected" that doesn't match how most people in the UK understand the term. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Herr Gruber the point of this change is that the Prime Minister is not indirectly elected. The Queen appoints the Prime Minister there are multiple examples such as Gordon Brown of politicans becoming a Prime Minister without ever winning an election, therefore Prime Minister's are not elected. Ebonelm (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, prime ministers are not directly elected. Brown's party was elected, so he gained his position as the result of an election. Much as it was a little unusual how indirectly he was elected, he was still indirectly elected. The sovereign doesn't just appoint whoever the hell they like. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ Church, Oxford is odd. All the other Colleges at Oxford have Fellows who are appointed to teach or research. These are essentially academic staff. Christ Church calls these people "Students". What you might call "Students" are called "Undergraduates" or "Post Graduates". It is therefore arguable that Einstein is not an alumni of Christ Church. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bduke. While I agree that Einstein wasn't an undergrad or postgrad at Christ Church a studentship would still have made him a member of the college. Personally I feel this would make him an alumni but I can understand why others might think otherwise. Nevertheless Einstein is a notable person who held a notable position at Christ Church and he should be mentioned in the article. Perhaps the section title could be changed to slightly broaden the remit? Ebonelm (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why I did not revert your edit, but I do not have time right now to work on anything much. However, I note that there are different categories for Category:Fellows of Christ Church, Oxford and Category:Alumni of Christ Church, Oxford. I do not think Einstein is in either. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gob_Lofa_disruptive_editing_on_Troubles_related_articles Mabuska ^(talk) 00:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Having received some feedback at the AN/I, I have filed an Arbitration Committee request for enforcement of Troubles restrictions against Gob Lofa instead at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gob_Lofa. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muslims in the United States military, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War in Afghanistan. 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) 09:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't quite understand as to why you have deemed the revision^[1] of this article with the inclusion of Lancaster University as "Wikipedia:BOOSTER". I am aware of what this policy contains, and have ensured that it does not conflict with any aspects. Also, I closely looked at what other universities had wrote and I believe the author wrote the equivalent level of literature.

109.155.178.185 (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Beenlom

Hi Ebonelm, I've noticed you've gone to lengths to describe Northern Ireland as a province instead of a polity on many articles but you seem happy with 'polity' on Frank Aiken. Why is this? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I changed the wording of the Frank Aiken article from polity to province. This was then changed again by another user, I have since reverted this. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Ebonelm (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edits with the summary "reverted to last neutral version". I believe that version is neutral and I was simply cleaning up a very poorly written article. MB298 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Western Sahara is a disputed territory in which there is no international consensus about who holds sovereignty over it. To place the Saharawi Democratic Republic coat of arms at the top of page is a violation of WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to this claimant over those used by Morocco. The version I have reverted to states in the lead the disputed status and does not privilege one over the other. The reason this page is entitled Coats of arms' rather than Coat, and uses the neutral term Western Sahara rather than that of a state, government, or organisation is because of this disputed status. Ebonelm (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, however the article definitely needs to be cleaned up. I do not intend to violate WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Primaries are a notable part of the 2016 President election, I see no reason to take them out of the see also section for the Democratic and Republican primary pages. I am undoing your revert and if you want to take them down please discuss and explain first. Acidskater (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To include the Libertarian Party primaries, but not to also include the primaries of other parties such as Green Party presidential primaries, 2016 is a violation of WP:SOAPBOXING. By deliberately trying to give the Libertarian Party as much prominence as the much more notable Democratic/Republican primaries but excluding other parties you are trying to inflate the importance of the Libertarian Party. Unless you want to include every single parties primaries in the see also at the top which would take up a lot of room then only the Democratic/Republican alternates should be listed. Ebonelm (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In no way do my edits violate WP:SOAPBOX. For one I never excluded the Green Party (nor did I ever publicly claim they should be excluded) by not also adding them to the hatnotes and had you added them instead of taken away the Libertarian party links I would not have reverted the edit. The reason I didn't add them is based on a previous discussion where there didn't seem to be a consensus but the amount of independent resources covering the primary was the factor and since the discussion the Libertarian Party had received a lot of coverage including having a nationally televised debate, so I could properly argue for it as I did here whereas the Green Party had not received more considerable coverage since the debate. I am not recruiting or advocating (in fact adding the other parties to the hatnote goes right along with WP:NPOV and WP:BALASPS by giving access to more information on the whole subject of the 2016 Presidential Primary), it is not an opinion piece adding a see also link, there is no scandal, there is no self-promotion as the link is to ensure full coverage of the 2016 presidential primaries (and I was not going to do anything to take down a link to the Green Party primary), and it certainly isn't advertising. Even more I am now of the opinion that all the hatnotes linking to other primaries be taken down as per WP:ALSO and WP:RELATED - based on the fact that all of that information is already included at the bottom of the article and it is extremely doubtful someone would accidentally get the Democratic primary when wanting to go to the Republican, Libertarian, or Green party primary. Acidskater (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As you publically support a Libertarian candidate for president on your user page it would seem that you have a bias which may lead you to want to increase the profile of the Libertarian campaign and may also lead you to believe it is a more important primary event than is actually the case. Its notability is limited: the Libertarian Party are holding 6 primaries, whereas the Greens are holding 17, suggesting a much more notable event. If you were truly trying to ensure coverage of all of the 2016 primaries then you wouldn't have just added your own party to the hatnote but also other third parties. Soapboxing does not just mean advertising, it also includes promoting causes with which you have a strong personal involvement, or including information on non-notable events. Ebonelm (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The amount of primaries a party holds does not constitute notability, coverage by independent sources constitutes notability. If you actually looked at my history of edits or started a discussion instead of making assumptions based on my political leanings you would notice I have kept to a neutral point of view...but thanks for assuming bad faith and accusing me of WP:Soapboxing before even beginning a discussion about the matter. Acidskater (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The King remained a Calvinist; only because the King of England is head of the Anglican church did he appear to change. I'll see if I can find my ref. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that William remained a Calvinist on the assumption of the throne but converted to Anglicanism later after the death of Mary. Ebonelm (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What's your source for that? I've usually found it the other way...but can't find anything at present. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was in William's correspondence I found my material; didn't the 1689 coronation oath demand subservience to the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law"; and that was taken to mean purely Anglicanism and cause some trouble? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You made some edits to Titanic II which were reverted by User:Ad Orientem. Please see the discussion on that article's Talk page. While Palmer has claimed that the project is merely "delayed" the overwhelming evidence points to financial collapse and the project being abandoned. Blue Riband► 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ebonelm, I strongly agree with your proposal of renaming the page "List of wars involving the United Kingdom" to the more inclusive "List of military conflicts involving the United Kingdom". This will prevent misunderstandings in the future. Time for a moving request? Let me know your opinion, please. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! About the edit - the UUP was founded in 1905 almost as a kind of party within a party (with its first and second leaders also being the leader of the IUA). The collapse of the IUA essentially affirmed the UUP's status as a fully independent party. By putting the UUP & UAPL as successor parties I was attempting to convey the various splinter organisations that essentially succeeded the IUA. Perhaps its something better conveyed in the bulk of the text though. MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Parliament election, 1999 (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Holmes. 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) 09:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Given you disagree I've challenged it on Talk:William Hague. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect London mayoral election, 2008/Image map. Since you had some involvement with the London mayoral election, 2008/Image map redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Lol. Re:this edit. Looks like I got swindled into unreverting a vandal self-revert. Good catch. TimothyJosephWood 22:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you've been reverting edits in which I've added a new picture of Tim Farron, stating that the picture is "very scary" and "very looming". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but here's the other 2 pictures I took of Farron, to see if you think either of them would be better.

I chose the currently used one because it's the best quality one, being taken physically closer to Farron, but I can edit the other two to work and they'd still be better quality than the one used before. JackWilfred (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@JackWilfred, the final picture in the gallery you provided looks good to me. The problem with the first picture is that Farron is leaning forward which gives a strange perspective, the same is true of the second picture too though as it is less zoomed in the effect is slightly less promiment. Ebonelm (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

See Help:IPA for English - "Gauke" rhymes with "auk" but not (Edit: not always) with "cork". In most British accents (including my own), it doesn't make a difference, but if you're Scottish, it does. Keith the Koala (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Gauke does rhyme with cork, I have no idea how you pronounce 'auk' but I'm guessing it doesn't rhyme with cork. Ebonelm (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Keith the Koala see for example the first 15 seconds or so of this YouTube video. Ebonelm (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify: in my accent, "auk" and "cork" rhyme with each other, as well as "Gauke", "talk", "fork", "pork", "Mork" and so on. But to people with rhotic accents, there are two different rhymes here - the ones spelled with an "r" are pronounced /-ɔːrk/ with an audible "r" sound, and the ones without an "r" are pronounced /-ɔːk/ without an "r". From Help:IPA for English:

"Gauke" is not spelled with an "r", so I wouldn't expect an /r/ in the phonetic transcription. The transcription /ɡɔːk/ matches how the name is said in that video. Keith the Koala (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the linked to BBC article and Privy Council minutes references? May might well had intended it to be Fox from the start, but that's not what the Privy Council formally did. Technicality in one respect, but since we are talking about a committee of the Privy Council, what the Privy Council actually did matters more than what the Prime Minister intended them to do. -- KTC (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@KTC, sorry didn't notice that the first time around, you are of course correct. Ebonelm (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not change the format of the article introductions – this is standard across Wikipedia. Your version is both clunky (repeated use of the year and country name) and in some cases gramatically incorrect (e.g. this). Misleading edit summaries are also unwelcome (as are blind reverts – you removed the category sorting key with your undos). And please respect WP:BRD. Thanks, Number 57 23:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the United Kingdom general election, 2015, Australian federal election, 2016, New Zealand general election, 2014, and the Indian general election, 2014, you will see that this is the standard way to start general election articles. These are large articles with a high volume of editors writing them ensuring there are no grammatical errors. I'm afraid your so-called standard is neither grammatically correct and has been almost entirely unilaterally implemented by you. Also there is nothing wrong with my grammar in the example you have given. Please refrain from reverting back to incorrect titles. Ebonelm (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, that standard intro was around long before I was (here are some examples from 2003). Secondly, if you cannot see the obvious grammatical error in "Saint Lucian general election of 1951 were", then I don't think you should be editing prose on Wikipedia. As I said, please respect BRD. If you revert again, I'm afraid I will be reporting you. Thanks, Number 57 23:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as you continued, I've filed a report on your behaviour here. Number 57 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chandra Shekhar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Premiership. 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) 09:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya chanakya (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The page named "Chief Secretary of India" is being edited by students for meeting their own needs.

The authentic information is being tampered with.

I am providing the link for SC judgement which says CM is the appointing authority. Kindly change the data. Students are changing it to "Governor" just to get their answer correct in the examination which was conducted recently.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/more-constitutional-than-political/article7236281.ece

The relevant laws

The laws relevant to understanding the relation between the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister in Delhi are Article 239AA of the Constitution, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 (GNCT Act), the rules formulated under this Act (Transaction of Business Rules), and the relevant judicial pronouncements. It needs to be said that the precise contours of the sharing of powers between the Lieutenant Governor and the Delhi government are a grey area. Yet, a reasonable case may be made to suggest that the Lieutenant Governor’s discretionary powers do not extend to the appointment of the Chief Secretary without the “aid and advice” of the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers. Further, it will be argued that the Home Ministry notification may not stand the test of constitutionality, being ultra vires of Article 239AA of the Constitution.

As far as States are concerned, the Chief Secretary is appointed by the Chief Minister and the Ministers. The reasoning for this can be found in these landmark Supreme Court judgments. E.P. Royappa (1974) states that “The post of Chief Secretary is a highly sensitive post…[Chief Secretary is a] lynchpin in the administration and smooth functioning of the administration requires that there should be complete rapport and understanding between the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister. …” Similarly, Salil Sabhlok (2013) says: “it may be necessary for [the] Chief Minister of a State to appoint a ‘suitable’ person as a Chief Secretary or the Director General of Police…because both the State Government or the Chief Minister and the appointee share a similar vision of the administrative goals and requirements of the State. The underlying premise also is that the State Government or the Chief Minister has confidence that the appointee will deliver the goods, as it were, and both are administratively quite compatible with each other. If there is a loss of confidence or the compatibility comes to an end…” These precedents clarify the rationale that the Chief Minister ought to have the discretion to appoint Chief Secretaries in the interest of a smooth functioning representative government.

First, examinations in India do not use Wikipedia as their source to determine whether or not an answer to a question is right or wrong. Second, the direct copying of text into an article without attributation in the way you did repeatedly is a copy right violation, and furthers my reasoning for having it removed. Finally, their are reliable sources in the article, which you have repeatedly removed, which show that Chief Secretaries are appointed by a state's Governor upon the advice of the Chief Minister. Ebonelm (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ebonelm: The reason I reverted was that the is a discussion to get consensus here. Castle has enough ballot access including write-ins to reach 270, please change the info back until consensus is decided. Thanks. Chase (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Chase, per WP:BRD the infobox should remain at the four party version which has consensus. If the outcome of the discussion you have linked to is that Castle should be included, only then should he be added in. Castle clearly does not have ballot access to 270 electoral votes which is the currently consensus for inclusion. Ebonelm (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ebonelm: You are clearly wrong here. It doesn't matter how you feel about it, it needs to stay on until the discussion is over, but don't worry someone else put it back. Cheers. Chase (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Chase, feelings have nothing to do with it. The consensus criteria was ballot access to 270 electoral votes, nobody, not even Castle himself, claims he has ballot access to this many electoral votes. Castle only has ballot access to 207 electoral votes, that is a fact. WP:BRD is an objective process which ensures that edits which go against consensus are reverted. There is no new consensus on the topic and per WP:BRD bold moves (such as adding Castle to the infobox) are reverted and then discussed. Only if the outcome of the discussion is to support the bold edit is it restored. Ebonelm (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ebonelm: I didn't add it, I don't even have any connection to the topic, someone added it a while back which started the discussion. it should remain until the discussion is over. Chase (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

An RfC was started at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#A_call_for_consensus_on_McMullin_and_Castle get comments on whether or not Castle and other write-ins should be added to the infobox. Your participation is appreciated. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:United States Armed Forces. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed your revert there. Why not join the discussion in talk, rather than start an edit war? --John (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ebonelm, this is an editor who is using an anonymous IP address. Your image edits were quite unnecessary. Changes I made was very relevant because the picture I put was taken very recently and it represents how the Cenotaph looks right now. Please don't make more disruptive changes.

Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.138.179.141 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly a WP:SOCKPUPPET for indefinitely banned user ThomasPark02 (see block log here). Please stop trying to promote your own images across Wikipedia (as I have previously requested on your now banned accounts talk page in this section, they are lower quality than the ones currently used an ammounts to disruptive editing. Ebonelm (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ebonelm. When I clicked in List of state leaders I was redirected to List of current heads of state and government, hence my last undone edit.

Ernestogon (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I highly suggest that you obtain consensus for the inclusion of a countdown, or please point to where it has already been established. Readers are fully capable of figuring out on their own how far away the election is. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ebonelm, this is ThomasPark02. I finally understood why were you mad at me and I was embarrassed that I did some vandalism edits to Wikipedia. However, I think my picture is better than current picture because it was taken more recently, it is my own work, it has high quality, and it is taken at good angle. One thing I do not understand about you and DrKay is that you two are continuously blocking my accounts and IP addresses, which made me very sad. Because of this and some messages that you and DrKay left, I thought that continuing this edit might disturb the peace of Wikipedia.

For last, I apologize to you and DrKay and I hope you consider about using my photo for article The Cenotaph and unblocking my IP addresses and accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.85.92.29 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You are editing against long consensus in adding 'MP' for current Parliamentarians - the view has generally been taken that an encyclopaedia biography takes a look at the whole of the subjects' life, so the lede should not use a postnominal which is time-dependent.

Recent consensus has generally opposed 'PC' as a postnominal for current Privy Counsellors. The usual way of distinguishing Privy Counsellors is the prefix 'The Right Honourable' so 'PC' as a postnominal is generally only used for Peers, all of whom up to the rank of Earl are 'The Right Honourable' anyway through their Peerages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer could you point me to the discussion where it was agreed to not use "MP" as a post-nominal because that rule has been inconsitently applied if it does exist. A number of the pages I edited already used "MP" as a post-nominal. As for the use of PC, having done some research and provided the appropriate references "PC" may be used for non-peers in circumstances when "Rt Hon" is not being used. A number of users appear to have been confused by statements regarding why both "Rt Hon" and "PC" are used for peers and think this means only peers may use "PC". It is preferred that "Rt Hon" be used instead of "PC" for non-peers, but as Wikipedia policy precludes as from that option then we should follow the rules for "PC" and place it after the name. Ebonelm (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not using 'MP' as a postnominal is very longstanding; it's just always been removed because it's against MOS:POSTNOM. That states "Post-nominal letters ... should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated". The term 'MP' is not one issued by a country or an organisation. It's simply an abbreviated style which became common in the 19th century. However the 'transitoriness' argument against it is referred to here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies/2012_archive#Need help on titles and honorifcs. Most recent discussion of 'PC' as a postnominal was here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies/2016_archive#Post-nominals "PC" for holders of prefix "Right Honourable". Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not how I would interpret MOS:POSTNOM or the use of "MP" as a postnominal, I think you are taking slightly too literal an intrepretation of MOS:POSTNOM, because technically no postnominals are granted by the United Kingdom as a country, by your logic we can't use "CBE" in articles because it is granted by the Queen (who is neither a country or an organisation). The manual of style guideline is clearly meant to be interpreted to only allow postnominals which are 'recognised' as legitimate in the country in which they are associated with which is the case with "MP". In other words a person can't just invent postnominals for themselves and then have them appear on this article, or if a person does have legitimate postnominals but they were issued by an authority which they are not commonly associated with then they should not be used, eg Bill Gates who is technically entitled to the postnominals "KBE" but we don't style him that way on Wikipedia because he is American where such postnominals are not used (please note I am not making an arguement based on the fact that he is not entitled to be styled Sir Bill Gates, he is not entitled to use "Sir" because he is not British/a member of the Commonwealth, but he is still entitled to use "KBE" if he so wishes). The use of "MP" as a postnominal is used by Parliament's own website showing it is more than a stylistic choice, and even if it is a stylistic choice its a recognised one which dates back over 100 years which is more than long enough for it to be considered an established convention. More to the point why are there so many articles which used MP even before I started making changes? Its clearly not a stable rule. I'm not sure that a discussion between two users four years ago can be considerd consensus either in the formal sense as it was hardly a big debate, or in pratice.

On the more pressing issue of "PC" the argument you link to is purely about life peers and so only tangental to this discussion. However where there is overlap it only serves to reaffirm my position and r my sources. The outcome affirms that "PC" is always used for life peers because they are already automatically entitled to use "Rt Hon" and therefore it is necessary to make it clear that they are members. As MPs are not automatically entitled to use "Rt Hon" therefore the use of "Rt Hon" implies they are members of the Privy Council. No discussion takes place about what happens when "Rt Hon" is not used, it is logical that if the use of "Rt Hon" is prohibited for stylistic reasons then "PC" which is allowed stylitically be used instead. Ebonelm (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ebonelm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 into Breed-specific legislation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, what is the reason for deleting our maps from the article? Here is the source: http://vectormap.info/free_vector_maps_downloads/vista-california-us-free-vector-map-adobe-illustrator/ You can also see the Ticket#2016111010015085

VectorMap.Info Team, Ilya Shrayber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya Shrayber (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The "vector maps" site which you quote claims copyright. The site appears to give permission to download; that does not imply that you are given permission to publish. breach of copyright law is taken seriously in Wikipedia; unless you can demonstrate clearly that you, personally, either hold copyright or have written permission from the copyright holder allowing you to publish, you may not do so and Ebonelm is correct to delete. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ebonelm, this is Thomas Park. I have seen your reporting to an administrator and messages on history sections. Since I noticed that I should use 'Talk' page, I started to use it. For The Cenotaph (Hong Kong), I left a message on a talk page, so please review it. For Martin O'Malley, I changed to a long picture, like you mentioned on history. For Ed Miliband I think the image that I previously put was better quality, so please review again. Finally, for Gapyeong Canada Monument, I accept that my images were low quality because I took it with my mobile phone. Please review images below and message me :)

P.S.: Let's end the damn edit war. I apologise for the edit war and I won't it again.