User talk:Redpaul1

Welcome![edit]

Hi Redpaul1! I noticed your contributions to Hyde Road (stadium) and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Mattythewhite (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[edit]

Thanks Redpaul1 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail reference at Pam Ayres[edit]

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Pam Ayres. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd agree with you. However, the first article I referenced is written by Pam Ayres. The second is an interview with Pam Ayres, from which I took a direct quote. In WP:DAILYMAIL, Wikipedia 'deprecates' but does not outright forbid the use of the Daily Mail as a source. I took that advice on board, but in this case, I used it because it 1) was the only source available, which is a permitted exception & 2) Ayres words only are cited, in both instances. If you can find another source for those quotes, then by all means subsitute your source for mine. Redpaul1 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it was the only source available, which is a permitted exception That is not true. Where did you get that idea? If you can find another source for those quotes, then by all means subsitute your source for mine. That is not how we deal with deprecated sources. It works the other way around: If you can source the content to a reliable source, you may re-add it. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on If Ayres writes an article about her life exclusively for the Mail, and the quotation used contains nothing controversial (I take it you actually read the footnoted quotes), I really fail to see the problem with using it. But if you think the entry's improved by removing the information contained therein, then go ahead and remove it, if you feel that strongly about it being there. I've no intention of getting into an edit war. Redpaul1 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps the "held at the Bell Inn" bit could be kept per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'm not sure whether WP:ABOUTSELF applies to a publication's self-description only (for example Daily Mail about Daily Mail) or also about an author's self-description in a deprecated source (Pam Ayres about Pam Ayres in the Daily Mail in our case).

For the "statement repeated in a Daily Mail interview of 2013" part, we shouldn't trust the Daily Mail to quote someone correctly. The fact that the Daily Mail has repeatedly misquoted people is one of the reasons it was deprecated. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, I only got interested in editing this entry to see if I could stand up the claim that Bob Dylan inspired Ayres to take up poetry. As I couldn't, I tried to find out whether she became aware of Dylan before or after she began writing (after), and the rest you know about.

I'm a published academic in the social sciences, so I do have some experience in judging the quality of a source, but I'm (clearly) no expert in Wikipedia protocols. As I said last night, I'm quite happy to go along with whatever further edits you think ought to be made. Redpaul1 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You too.

Normally, I wouldn't touch the Mail with a bargepole IRL, let alone on Wikipedia; but as we know, context is everything: and that is why I supplied those detailed quotations with each citation; so as to be as clear as I could, that I was basing my edit on only those specific statements lifted from each article, and on nothing else.

But just to repeat, & notwithstanding any of the above, I'm perfectly happy to go along with whatever edits to the page you think appropriate. And I'll be sure in future to stay well away from the Mail on Wikipedia, as I do IRL. Redpaul1 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]