User talk:TFOWR

This is TFOWR's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 7 days

Wikipedia:Babel

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

sco-1

This brouker can contreibute wi a laich level o Scots.

pl-0

Ta osoba nie zna języka polskiego (albo ma z nim olbrzymie trudności).

pt-0

Este usuário/utilizador não entende português.

Search user languages

Template:Archive box collapsible In a perfect world I'd keep threads in one place; in practice if you post here I'll probably reply on your talk page unless you ask me to reply here. If I post on your talk page I'll almost certainly add it to my watchlist, so reply where-ever you'd prefer.

New username, new talkpage strategy. If you post here, I'll reply here. If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.

If you're wondering why I'm advertising my complete inability to speak Polish, it's because I've edited an article on pl.wikipedia and there's a small possibility someone from there might want to discuss it with me, and that they follow the redirect at pl:User talk:This flag once was red to this talk page...

Likewise for Portuguese - I posted a machine-translated message in Portuguese.

There is, of course, a whole range of languages that I can speak with near-zero proficiency - I wouldn't want you to think that I'm especially unskilled in Polish and Portuguese. To be honest, I'm not even particularly good at speaking English: I lurch between English and Scots with all the alacrity of a Glaswegian in toon fe the nicht.

Need help adding alt text

Hi. Thanks for the congrats on the barnstar! Was wondering if you could explain how, or even go ahead and add alt text to the info box image at The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie as per the FAC request. Thanks. Btw -- good to have you back! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look now! I added alt text to an article undergoing FA-review fairly recently, so I can't plead ignorance ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is something I should learn because it's now required. Anyway, if you need text, I think something simple like the The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie would be fine. The primary editor is watching my talk page, so it's best to reply there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK for a caption, but alt text is intended for accessibility, e.g. for vision impaired readers, so alt text needs to be hugely descriptive - I've done it now, take a look at what I've added to see what I mean. Stuff like "a young boy wearing a red headband and holding drumsticks" - it seems excessive, but I guess it's useful! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very speedy indeed!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief note

Greetings, TFOWR. You probably don't need to be told this, but referring to the living subjects of articles in this manner in edit summaries is really uncalled for and can't improve the editing climate on controversial articles. Sincerely, Skomorokh 19:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Blushes) Apparently I do need to be reminded... sorry. You're quite right, and I'll be more careful in future. Thanks for the friendly reminder. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, sorry to get all civility police on you and keep up the good work. Cheers, Skomorokh 19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Islamification of Europe

The recent edits which you put into the article are clearly bias in favour of violent communist militias IMO. For the following reasons;

1) you removedthe fact that John Denham is left wing. He is a member of the Labour Party, a social democrat party and he is personally from Trot roots. His comments needs to be put in context, regarding his position on the Christian people of England.
2) you removed the fact that the UAF is ran and founded by the Socialist Workers Party, the largest Trotskyite organisation in the United Kingdom. It is not simply a random organisation against "fascism" out of the goodness of its heart, as the reds would like to ambigiously present for purposes of propaganda in the media.
3) you changed the wording of the people who were throwing bricks, bottles and firecackers at the police, so that it looks to the casual reader that it may have been this organisation. When it fact it was only Islamists, Studes and Communists who did all the object throwing and violent clashing with police, as the BBC video clearly shows. SIOE did not clash at all, they stood around and then called the protest off. This is very sneaky and quite naughty. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means mention that Denham is in the Labour Party - indeed, my edit didn't remove that fact. I'm unsure what you mean about the "Christian people of Britain" or how Denham's beliefs - current or historical - affect Christians;
The UAF was not founded by the SWP - it was founded by the SWP and other organisations - it's unclear to me why you find it necessary to single out the SWP, and it's unclear to me why the SWP is relevant to this article;
I changed the wording because you made it appear that the UAF were the instigators;
In all cases I checked the links you provided and found that you were reading too much into those sources. For example, the BBC source you referenced did not say that it was Muslims and the far-left attacking the police - it merely said demonstrators;
In all cases I left clear edit summaries - you could have checked those, rather than getting me to repeat same here.
If you believe I've been "sneaky" or "naughty" by all means raise it at ANI - I've certainly commented on your edits there, so it's only fair.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a solid reference regarding the position of the people who were violently attacking the police; [1] Islamic groups riot with police in Harrow], the London Daily News.
UAF was founded primarily by the Socialist Workers Party, along with a racial left-wing organisation and some corrupt unions. It obviously needs to mention that these are rev-left. The SWP are the main driving force, UAF's most active organiser Weyman Bennett is a member of the SWP. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not - it states "Anti-Islamic groups organised peaceful protests outside of the new super-mosque which has a minaret over 300ft high, only to be confronted by masked Muslims." No mention of the Muslims attacking police, and no mention of anyone other than Muslims.
Re: the UAF - then why mention only the SWP? Why mention the founding organisations at all? You clearly seem to believe it's relevant, and I'm not necessarily opposed to that, it's just that I can't for the life of me see why yet. "The left tend to be anti-fascist" is hardly a major surprise.

If you do find a reference I have no objection to the claim being added - my problem is with the slap-dash sourcing that smacks of WP:OR and WP:POV.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're being facetious, the article in the paper is called Islamic groups riot with police in Harrow. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. "Riot with" does not equate to "attack". State what the source states; don't apply your own interpretation. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]