Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) Notice: Not signing posts. (TW) |
Joseph2302 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 300: | Line 300: | ||
Also, be aware of [[WP:3RR]], which says you should not revert content more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Your request for help is valid at the article talkpage, but not the article itself. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
Also, be aware of [[WP:3RR]], which says you should not revert content more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Your request for help is valid at the article talkpage, but not the article itself. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Then stop removing it, and I won't need to. If you can't help. why not just stay away? I'm trying to attract the attention of someone helpful. I've asked for your help. If you won't give it, please let me carry on seeking someone who will. What good do you think you are doing? [[User:Clockback|Clockback]] ([[User talk:Clockback#top|talk]]) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I've told you who deleted the file, they're probably the only person who knows why it was deleted. As I haven't seen the file, this is the best help I could give. Also, nowhere on their [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Didym Commons talkpage] does it say they've left. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 13:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== June 2015 == |
== June 2015 == |
Revision as of 13:25, 1 June 2015
Welcome
Hello, Clockback, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dick Clark 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
|
I'm not a politician, so I can change my mind
I stated somewhere up in the above arguments that I thought deism was arguably as reasonable as atheism. My consciousness has been raised by the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument, and I no longer hold such an opinion. Just for "the record". -Neural 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey
Hey whats' up dude? I read your book!! It rawks!Bookishreader45 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Your main wiki article
PLease would you consider my request on your main article discussion page to update the article, including your opinion on global warming and it's social/political repercussions? Many thanks Miamomimi 09:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Saki
I draw your attention to my comments at Talk:Saki. Please feel free to continue the discussion there or here, as you prefer. And please let me know if I can help. BrainyBabe 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Debates on the grammar school
An article that you have been involved in editing, Debates on the grammar school, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debates on the grammar school. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
ADHD article
Please don't unilaterally revert the ADHD article. Three editors have now commented and all agree consensus should be attempted first in talk. Thanks --scuro (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
January 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Versageek 22:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Conflict resolution
At the risk of an unwelcome message I thought I'd mention that I contacted AGK to request informal mediation in the edit war on the ADHD article but thought progress was being made and reassured him accordingly, which may have been premature and you may wish to freshen the request for mediation. Miamomimi (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm getting used to the wiki-way too and I understand that here conversations are usually kept in one place so I've replied to your message on my talk page but as I'm writing this can I just mention a piece of research that I haven't noticed in your draft (forgive me if it's there, it's hard to unscramble the coded stuff); there was an article in Daily Mail tues May 25th 2004 written by Beezy Marsh and Robin Yapp entitled 'Proof that E-numbers really DO make a child hyperactive.'. It mentions a conclusive study on the IoW, the first study of it's kind, proving that nutrition and chemicals in food really do produce the symptoms of ADHD. The research was led by peadiatrician Prof. John Warner (Southampton Uni) and was published in Archives of Diseases in Childhood. I can find this link but to be honest I'm PC blind at the moment. Case studies were also mentioned as evidence of todays toxic childhood, namely; Carol Johnson and her son Alexander who was diagnosed with D.A.M.P. and campaigner Alex Gallagher of Glasgow whose 7 yr old son Ryan was diagnosed with ADHD. I mention this because I think it might be easier for you to access this research (I can't find a link online) and I am caring for a sick child myself at the moment. Beezy Marsh seems to have written a lot about ADHD and MMR. Miamomimi (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The database is locked from time to time when usage or other CPU load is heavy; usually trying again works, if not immediately, then after a few minutes..... --Abd (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Clockback, I have added a comment here to your request for editor assistance. Incidentally I found the presentation of your comments on Abd's talk page interesting and noticed that he seems quite anxious for your attention. Also, another editor, Barrylb, has provided sources to evidence controversy, see ADHD talk page. Miamomimi (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What is happening now is that users are starting to introduce sourced text, which is what I've been requesting. Simply introducing preferred ways for the text to read, without justification from reliable sources, isn't going to work when there are editors with strong POVs involved. I can defend sourced text, watch and, assuming I don't have some accident, and I continue to have time, and you will see, it should be somewhat visible already. I assume you have also noticed that more sophisticated users track the contributions of disputants on an issue of interest to them, so they are aware of what is going on. If, for example, you contact an administrator, if another user wants to follow what you are up to, he or she will know by watching Special:Contributions/(insert user name), you can add this to your Watchlist. Admins usually respond to official communications on the contacting user's talk page, so if an editor is watching your Talk page, they will also see that response. This is all part of the process, most of it is out in the open, unless users decide to contact each other by email or phone or in person.... oh, yes, isn't there that thing with stamps, I forget the name.... :-) --Abd (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Clockback - have you seen the feedback, here? Miamomimi (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Use "Show Preview"
Clockback, it's apparent that you "Save page" with your changes, *then* read them over and make a change, save it again, then repeat this numerous times. That clogs up article history and creates other problems as wel. If you use Show preview, you can read over your changes before you save them, and fix them, before committing the changes to Wikipedia. Also there is a button "Show Changes" which will show the exact changes you are making. I did take out some text you had inserted into the article today; quite simply, it was not sourced. Some of what I took out could probably go back if properly sourced, though, as I've indicated before, it can get complicated. I made some changes in the introduction to make it a little more neutral, and justified this in Talk.--Abd (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
offical warning
Please see post in ADHD talk. Argue content and not personalities. It's in the code of behaviour.--scuro (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- He's right, Clockback, which comment by me evinces no judgment that you have been doing what is implied by the warning, I haven't read today's talk edits yet. However, this "offical warning" isn't "official," that is, it's his personal warning, though an administrator, later, looking at abuse, might consider whether or not the user was warned. They aren't stupid, though, they know that a "warning" from someone involved in a dispute can be less effective than one from a user not involved. Take all 3RR warnings seriously, though. Any user can put a 3RR warning on another user's page, and when improper reverts come to an administrator's attention, a disregarded warning is essential for the user to be blocked -- unless the offense is outrageous, in which case it might be block first and ask questions later. You are in no danger. Scuro might be, for blocks for edit warring can be placed even without the four reverts in 24 hours. It can happen, sometimes, with one. In my view, Scuro has been pushing the limits, but, my judgment, he's not quite over the limits yet. An administrator might disagree. However, I highly recommend that you stay away from official complaint about edit warring. It's a tricky process and administrators can be easily irritated when new users don't do it right. If it comes to a need for that, there really should be several editors involved, and it's best of someone who doesn't have an axe to grind other than Wikipedia process quality does it. Just be patient and persistent in providing sourced text. You can Be Bold and put stuff in the article directly, but if it gets reverted, as it might even if properly sourced and appropriate, watch out for multiple reverts that don't make at least some attempt at compromise language. Edit warring is like stalemate in chess: moves back and forth with no progress in position, two sides dug in (rarely more than two sides) insisting on their idea of what is right without listening and seeking some higher understanding, a synthesis. Stuck. If that happens, *then* there is a graduated dispute resolution process. It can start with WP:RFC, to get wider opinion on some *specific* issue, though there is also RFC for user behavior. --Abd (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
comment for you..
On my talk page from Abd, do pop by but I will copy here for your convenience:
- Clockback, you can lead a horse to water. Yes, I congratulate you on discovering tags. It's exactly correct to do this, and you are serving the project when you place them. Before, you complained about unsourced material in the article, how come you had to provide sources when there was so much unsourced opinion already in the article? Instead of complaining -- which gets little done here -- you are now acting. If no citation is provided in a reasonable time, anyone can take the text out, and putting it back in without a citation would be considered, quite likely, POV-pushing if there is some POV involved. It *gets it done*. The theory is that if it is true and appropriate for the article (two separate issues), there should be reliable source available, and demanding that something be in the article without reliable source is quite recognizable -- usually -- as POV pushing. As to the text-marks, yes, I could have fixed it quickly if I had seen it. I'm not your proofreader, I was a professional proofreader at one time, and I'm not being paid for it. But I do what comes to my attention. Notice how, fairly consistently, you have assumed bad faith and dereliction of some imagined duty on the part of other editors, and you haven't thanked me once, for I'm a major part of the "others joining in." I'm a mature editor, in more ways than one (I'm older than you), and I'm also pretty familiar with how Wikipedia works with disputed text. *Nobody* is truly a master of it, in my opinion, it's too new and too much in flux. In any case, whether you thank me or not is less my business than it is yours. If you would realize who is helping you and who is not, you might become more effective. You have stated you are not a politician. That's certainly true! Politicians don't turn away help, unless it's from someone truly offensive -- and even then.... Abd (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kind regards Miamomimi (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WARNING
You have begun contentious editing in Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, making edits that you expect to be reverted. (acknowledged here) Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, see WP:POINT. If you believe that an edit is going to be reverted, don't make it. Instead, propose it in Talk, specifically, and seek consensus on it. Don't edit war. If you believe that your edits would improve the article, but they are being blocked by others, use dispute resolution, see WP:DR. None of this should discourage you from making improvements to the article, but material you add should meet WP:RS, the requirements for reliable sourcing. Disruptive editing can result in blocking of your ability to edit Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
re: No it doesn't
Clockback wrote: Your censorship of my insertion in 'Controversy about 'ADHD' article is unacceptable and morally wrong. Please restore it at the first available opportunity. I have no idea why you think you can arrogate the right to remove such things from an entry about controversy. Adding to entries is an honourable activity. Deleting what other people have written, especially where it is a plain statement of the truth, is wholly different. The fact that some people are described as 'individuals' implies nothing clear. Anyone unfamiliar with this controversy, news of which you seem so anxious to suppress or minimise, would not gain this impression from the censored version - which is presumably why you have censored it. The statement that these people are unconnected with Scientology etc is necessary to counteract the powerful insinuation in the article. This is clearly intended to suggest that critics of 'ADHD' are dominated or driven by cultic or other agendas. This is quite simply untrue. Oh, and please assure your friend'Scuro' that those who wish to see the truth told about this matter have not gone away,nor 'died down' but are still working on the matter by other means, having tried very hard but failed to achieve any compromise by discussion with 'Scuro'. Peter Hitchens, signed as Clockback (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you have misinterpreted my intentions when I made this edit (I think). I believe you added that line in good faith. I removed it not for any censorship purposes, but because I felt it was redundant and detracted from the flow of the paragraph. By calling them individual medical professionals and other prominent media personalities, it already implies they are wholly unconnected with Scientology or any other movements which were mentioned in the sentences above. If you wish add more emphasis that they are separate from a movement or Scientology, perhaps the sentence could be rephrased as something like "Unassociated medical professionals and other prominent media personalities also independently question the existence of the disorder." (That sounds ok, but I'm sure between us we can come up with something better.)
- In any case I appreciate that you didn't simply revert my edit back and chose to contact me on the talk page. That was very courteous. I try my best to negotiate and avoid being confrontational.
- As for User:scuro, he/she has no other relationship to me other than as a fellow Wikipedia editor who happens to work frequently on the same page as I do. I'm my own party in this with the goal of trying to improve the article quality as much as I can. Cheers, Sifaka talk 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. On a completely irrelevant note I found an article about your visit to Pyongyang which I will check out when I get back from a meeting. Are there any other interesting places you have been to or thinking about going to?
- I am not going to change your version of the statement because I thought we were both attempting to say the same thing: that the medical professionals and media personalities were entirely unconnected with Scientology. I understand the merits of stating it explicitly like you phrased it leaves no room for error, which it excellent.
- On another note, I felt your response on my talk page could have been more civil. I read the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Civility page and I think it might help clear up misunderstanding if I explain why I reacted negatively at first when I read your response. I am not trying to debate your reasoning or say I'm right. Rather I am trying to state clearly what I thought you were saying which may be patently wrong.
- When I first made this edit to the ADHD controversy article, I thought that the sentence as I changed it meant the same thing as your sentence, only with fewer words. So, when you wrote this on my talk page, my reaction was "Huh? I thought both versions meant the same thing. Now he thinks I am purposely trying to censor him in order to push an agenda, which isn't my goal at all. I had better explain that I think he misunderstood my intentions."
- I then wrote this on your talk page. I thought it would clear up the confusion so that you would understand that I made that edit in good faith and I am not trying to push any sort of agenda.
- So when you responded, I was very surprised because I thought you knew that I wasn't trying to push any sort of agenda. My first impression of the tone was that it was condescending. I was offended that you seemed to say that I didn't know what censorship was and whether or not it was immoral. I felt like I was being accused of a crime on the level of North Korean censorship.
- I DO NOT think this is what you intended. I am sorry for the confusion I have caused you. I do have some constructive criticism.
- Aim for moderate language, especially when the other person may not have the same viewpoint as you. It will get your point across just as well and you have less risk of causing others to react negatively.
- Avoid statements which categorize or accuse the other of being X or engaging in Y to avoid putting them on the defensive. Putting someone on the defensive will "close their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming." An example from one of your responses is, "until you recognize that censorship is immoral." I naturally want to defend myself and say "I already know censorship is immoral."
- It is helpful to include "escape clauses" which will allow someone else to explain if they think you are misinterpreting what they are saying. "If I understand you correctly..." "Assuming you mean X..." etc...
- I tried to put myself in your shoes and decided that it would be helpful for me if you clarified what your reaction was to my responses. I also look forward to any constructive criticism you have for me so that I may improve my future dialogue. Cheers! Sifaka talk 05:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
== I would like to have a private conversation with you regarding the ADHD controversy page. Can you suggest how we can accomplish that == --Ss06470 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I work for a London newspaper called the Mail on Sunday. I can be reached there without too much effort. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
what's your deal?
why don't u think adhd exists?
what's your deal?
why don't u think adhd exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"Restores censored information about dissent. Removes assertions of opinion as if it were fact"
"the invented complaint "ADHD"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Google it
And you will find out. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
bare helpful...(why no identifier?)
Interesting that the above incomprehensible remark ( "bare helpful")appears without any identifier of any kind. But to be more specific, if you Google "Peter Hitchens" and "ADHD" you will find along article, followed by correspondence, which explains my position. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/05/the_adhd_fantas.html is what he is no doubt referring to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprw (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Controversy
From what I can gather there's been quite a lot of blog chatter on various parts of the Internet, but bloggers discuss virtually everything and I haven't been able to find anything written by a professional writer or similar. I removed the paragraph detailing the article because there wasn't anything in the text to indicate that it had actually been particularly controversial and, at the time, didn't come up with much when I searched on Google either. Obviously you know more about the sort of response the article got than I do though. Do you want the segment to be restored or is it the inconsistency that bothers you? I don't think the Diane Abbott bit really adds anything to the article and wouldn't be bothered if it was removed. EvilRedEye (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Mr Eye for his response. I suppose my view is that if the Diane Abbott bit deserves to be there, then so does the rape segment. But the implication of that (for me) is that it is better to restore the rape section ( as revised by me) rather than delete the Abbot one. I'd always rather add (see below) than delete. Only a few swivel-heads on the web seriously think that I have any sympathy for the BNP (plus Diane Abbott MP,of course). But since they exist, and still spread this untruth when they can, it does no harm to feature my dismissal of this as "garbage" and a link to a blog article rebutting it in detail. Similarly, if my views on rape are being widely misrepresented ( as they are) in many places on the web, then a full summary of the argument is helpful to me. I am very reluctant to delete anything (unless actually untrue) written about me, believing that to be censorship. So, where I think it's misleading I instead edit it for greater accuracy. I took some trouble to make the rape reference accurate - so was a bit dismayed when the whole thing was almost immediately wiped. I am not sure that these days anything needs to be written by a 'professional writer' for a controversy to exist. On the contrary. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe both bits could be moved to the 'Core beliefs' section? I don't really mind, restore the article to how you left it if you want. EvilRedEye (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I just have a sort of feeling that the person who made the change should do the alterations if he thinks them justified. I get enough trouble for editing my own entry as it is.PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What's your opinion on professional wrestling?
Out of interest. Luther Hull (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Bob Ainsworth
In short, WP policy on original research means we can't rely on the claims of editors. Rather (WP:V) we have to verify claims from reliable sources. cheers, Rd232 talk 12:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- "I am happy to show you her e-mail." - if you'd bothered to read the policy links above, you'd realise how absurd that sounds. To spell it out: policy requires that factual claims are sourced to reliable sources which are verifiable by virtual of being published by reputable organisations. Clear enough? PS WP:BLP policy, in case you're not familiar with that either, requires that editors "swoop" and pre-emptively remove unsourced material that may be damaging (and as noted before, it may be re-added if properly sourced). cheers, Rd232 talk 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, what more can I do? The article is in fact a sourced fact ( not even a claim). Assuming good faith - as you have not done from the beginning of your dealings with me - I took it that your inability to understand this might arise fom a lack of knowledge about the terminology and rules of political journalism. To reassure you that the terminology used was normal, and that the 'spokesperson' quoted was, as I said, an official spokesperson for the Secretary of State, and the words I quoted were the spokesperson's as communicated to me via the government e-mail system, I was and remain prepared to forward you a copy of the e-mail. This is not to establish veracity, which is already clearly established in the eyes of those who understand how political journalism works ( and practically anyoe else, in my view) , but to help you understand an area of life you appear not to understand. Of course, were I to assume that you just wanted to keep the information out of the entry for other reasons, I needn't bother. But, as I said, I'm assuming good faith. Isn't it time you did the same? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The DSM
Clockback - I think you will find this interesting. Mimi (yack) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ainsworth and neutrality
Thanks for your note. I'll have a little think about it and hopefully come up with something later today. I know that Wikipedia is well known for having people make political motivated edits to all sorts of articles up to and including ones on the age at death of renaissance artists, but the policy is that we should strive for neutrality as indicated by the balance of evidence given in WP:Reliable sources. As you have come out as an individual well-known for expressing political views in your public life, I suspect that there are going to be individuals watching your contributions, both to your own article and elsewhere, with malice aforethought all ready to accuse you of bias. I should therefore counsel a certain degree of caution.
That's not to say that you wouldn't be able to detect my own views from my contributions, but I have still seen fit to, for example, amend the Vernon Richards and Albert Meltzer articles to include mention of their feud even though as an activist at the time I found the constant bickering between Freedom and Black Flag annoying to say the least.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OWN is a well-recognised problem. And yes there are lots of silly little disputes. There's currently one going on at Arab Capital of Culture where, even though the 2009 capital was clearly awarded to the Palestinians, some people are wanting to make a (WP:POINT) by placing an Israeli flag in the table of hosts in retaliation for the Arab League making their own political point in treating Jerusalem as an Arab city.
- WP:RFC is probably the next step if things remain deadlocked on the Ainsworth page. It does strike me as curious that there is a big song and dance on whether your referencing yourself about his attending the IMG meetings coudl create a BLP issue, but the negative suggestion in the article on you about why you left the Tory party, was left without comment until I flagged it on Friday. You, of course, would have the right to demand removal of the claim in the absence of a reference to a reliable source, but I wanted to see if someone could produce a reference in the next couple of days.
- It's good that you are aware of the dangers of conflict of interest. Of articles where I am involved, David Langford is very good at using the talk page to flag changes, while Rosalind Plowright's agent tried to remove all criticism and the Jewish Internet Defense Force regularly introduce new accounts to say how wonderful they are and remove any suggestion that they admire Meir Kahane.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Clockback. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rd232 talk 14:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the relevant policy on verification of identity is WP:REALNAME, which gives an email address to write to and verify that you're Hitchens. (I'm not saying you're not, but impersonation does happen and if you could send an email and put the matter to rest, it would be better.) cheers, Rd232 talk 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"Nor have my opponents paid any attention to, or even acknowledged my repeated offers to reach a compromise, and if they addressed the facts I adduce and the logic I deploy it would make a nice change. Generally they simply ignore them" - pot calling kettle. But if you need my help or support then you can call on me. Mimi (yack) 09:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Clockback for confirming that, I really appreciate that. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Clockback
I hope you will take this as just a little help which is what it is. Calling other editors here opponents is poor form, we are all editors together just with different opinions about what is best for the article, you will get a better response if you stop refering to others as opponents. Also, you seem a bit focused on this, with your talents in writing and your knowledge and experiance in the political sphere there are so many other articles you could help improve. Ainsworth will take its own wikipedia time and if it doesn't get in now it will perhaps get put in later, that is how it goes here. I could accept the edit if the article was longer and more expanded as that way it wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. I offer you my comments with respect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I do like bikkies, I know we are also in a way all opponents attempting to get our point in but it is better left unsaid, it is quite funny here getting along with other editors helps in many ways. I am, over time, getting more and more neutral about this edit. I would like to see it in a citation apart from your column. Is it cited anywhere else? It is always going to be hard to get edits in that are cited from your writings, although not impossible. Actually I am starting to like that edit, something like, According to Bob Ainsworth's spokesperson he was invited to (or went with) a friend to a couple of marxist meetings in (whatever year it was) the 70's and it confirmed his views that he did not agree with those opinions and became a socialist.... there was something like this edit..and it is quite neutral and not too bad. I also agree that the fact that the article needs extending is a side issue and has no weight in whether this comment should be included, if I could be shown the comment or something like it in a cite other than yours I could support it's inclusion. If the disputed comment is inserted I will work on finding some more detail about Ainsworth to reduce the impact a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Forms of address
Clockback - when commenting specifically on anything I've written on WP, which you have this evening, please use my username. I do exist, you know precisely who I am and what gender (thanks) and ignoring me won't make it otherwise. Thanks a lot. Mimi (yack) 22:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ainsworth stories.
Hi Clockback, in [this link here]..you say this....
I can recall members of the International Marxist Group yelling ‘Victory to the IRA!’ on student demonstrations. So I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student.
- Could you please explain where you saw these stories? Off2riorob (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, later today lets try to close this down and get a satisfactory comment for insertion. Regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkpage guidelines.
As it was mentioned yesterday here is a link to talk page guidlines, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines which is a page that I need to read also. regards.Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. May I say how pleased I am that we are getting somewhere with this edit. If you are interested, I've two small comments on the entry as it is. I think it would be better without the word 'several' for which we have limited evidence, and the item referred to is a 'Mail on Sunday' blog, not a 'Daily Mail' one. You may be unimpressed by the distinction but the two papers are in fact rivals, who share a building, a library and a switchboard but have separate staffs and editors and follow their own agendas.PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, cool indeed, I am also happy about the addition. To be honest I don't want it in the article, however it has been worked out and cited, written in a ok way and we have added it. With a biography of a living person we have to be especially careful. I will change the citation for you no problem, later we'll have a look at the time phrase..several. mail on sunday blog, ill have a look at corrcting that now. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oxford to Cambridge cycle route
Clockback - did you recently mention a cycle route on an old railway line between Oxford and Cambridge? Could I please trouble you to tell me where that can be found? I have friends in both cities and intend to visit. My children are too young to cycle on roads and by canals. I've googled and have only found routes that include roads and 'quiet lanes'. Is the one you mentioned Route 57?? If it isn't and it is too troublesome to provide a map ref then please ignore this message. Although I intend to archive my talk page and you wish me to do yours too then please say. Best regards, Mimi (yack) 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Referencing in the Peter Hitchens article
Hi Clockback. You recently added quite a big chunk to the Education section of the Peter Hitchens (PH) article. The first part (dealing with a general dilution of education and of examination standards) had references embedded within it and it was possible to edit it accordingly and make it a strong valid inclusion conforming to Wikepedia guidelines. The second part, however, (dealing with sex education) was totally free of references. Entries like this are just exacerbating the main problem with the PH article—a lack of referencing. It would help therefore if you could include at least some sources when making entries, even chapter numbers in books would be better than nothing. If there are no references available, WP:NOR becomes an issue.Jprw (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Clockback thanks for your reply. Hopefully the referencing problems with the PH article can be gradually sorted out. I was thinking of sitting down over Xmas and including a clutch of salient references from The Broken Compass and The Abolition of Britain -- the fact that these are not referred to all in the PH article is in my view a problem. Of course, ideally, greater involvement is desirable from other editors -- in the meantime, it looks as though progress will be slow.
Re: the indexing business on the TBC page, I'm sure it will be reinstated -- I've seen one or two references to it and I need to find them.
Say it like it is
This is a good piece of writing, I am considering adding a comment to the Cameron article. Say it like it is, regards to you Clockback. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not edit war
Clockback - I am not being hostile or unreasonable to you on the Broken Compass article or anywhere else. AGF. My right arm is in a sling and i am right handed. I'm sure it would be better for you if other editors expanded that section and made those edits. Regards Mimi (yack) 14:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Mimi I can't post anything on your talk page -- nothing but a list of archives but I strongly suspect I'm missing something. Please send me any references you have. Will probably get round to doing some more editing this weekend. ThanksJprw (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Edits done. Just needed little time. Douglas Murray not strictly a book review but as respectd source that featured book thought ok. Mimi (yack) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Clockback - yes of course your comment will be left in place as you are so clearly detirmined it should be. You are writing of a few minutes where an edit conflict occured. I was trying to be helpful but can see that I was in error. Believe me I am sorry for doing that. Kind regards, Mimi (yack) 12:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
K&C
I've removed it -- it's a clear example of mischief making and would have been dealt with eventually by a Wiki editor. Jprw (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
TBC reference
Hi Clockback. I'm in the process of trying to round off the work I've done on The Broken Compass article. About two months ago I edited a lenghty contribution you made there, and removed a reference to a Private Eye piece re: the index, expecting to be able to find it on the web and include it later, properly sourced. However, I have been unable to locate it -- making various searches in Google has been to no avail. I'm writing to ask if you know which issue of Private Eye it was in? I believe it was written by Craig Brown. Ideally a web link would be best. Thanks in advance and Season's Greetings. Jprw (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me -- in the absence of a good Private Eye link I can refer to the Poole reference -- not ideal but better than nothing. Best, Jprw (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: A Brief History of Crime I will be glad to get round to it at some point. Actually, The Abolition of Britain was next on my list, and as I have a hard copy of that (essential for writing a proper synopsis) I'll be concentrating on that for the moment, and probably only for the time being adding a needed reviews section to A Brief History of Crime. Also, work on TBC is at present more or less over – barring any sudden late reviews in the Conservative press appearing which could be included (and which would in fact balance out the reviews section). Help from other editors would of course be most welcome but alas recently has not been forthcoming. Best, Jprw (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Craig Brown parody
Thanks for the reference. As a result of getting the title and more searching in Google was finally able to get the source which enabled me to go ahead and reference it in the TBC article.Jprw (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Brief History of Crime
Hi there, Peter. I have hopefully improved this article somewhat (certainly with regards to style), but I have a number of issues:
- Was it released in 2003, or 2004? There seems to be some conflict as on your own entry, it is listed as 2003, but on the book's entry, it is 2004.
- Again, the reissue on your own article is listed as 2004, but on the book's article as 2005
Since searching, I've found reviews dating from 2003, so I assume the earlier date is correct and have listed it as such.
I've also removed some of the text, so as to stop it from reading like an advert (not to suggest that this was your intention).
Unfortunately I couldn't find many reviews, bar the NS and DT reviews, neither of which were very quotable, and both of which were unduly harsh, I feel. Have you any more reviews I could add in? SE7Talk/Contribs 16:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I note with concern your comments re: the Rose review. I included this (as part of two negative left leaning reviews balanced by two positive right leaning reviews) but I can withdraw it if you like as in line with WP:BLP we have to be very careful with ad hominen issues. Also, I'm afraid SE7 got the wrong end of the stick re: the synopsis -- I was rather hoping he might tackle it, as I don't have a hard copy of the book (as I mentioned earlier). I'll leave a note on SE7's page about this.Jprw (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Booker book
Hi Clockback, I have created what in my view is an overdue Wikipedia page on the Christopher Booker book The Real Global Warming Disaster. However, within two minutes (literally) of creating the page an "earmarked for deletion" type banner had appeared at the top of the article. This is an ominous sign -- if supportive messages don't appear on the discussion page or if another person doesn't edit the article (preferably citing a good source) then the article may be deleted. Any support you could offer on this would be helpful. Best, Jprw (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Clockback, re: the above, alarm over -- the problem with the mediator concerned has been resolved. Jprw (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI -- see Booker controversy at the bottomJprw (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head Jprw (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
New Hitchens book
I've created a new page for The Rage Against God: Why Faith is the Foundation of Civilisation.
Neural (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The War We Never Fought: The British Establishment's Surrender to Drugs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Mullin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PICTURE?
A few weeks ago I inserted a recent picture of myself, with the personal permission of the photographer and all necessary registrations with wikimedia commons etc. It has now disappeared. Who removed it? Why? How do I put it back? Peter Hitchens, signed in as clockback Clockback (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- The edit history shows that the picture was deleted from Wikimedia Commons due to having no license. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Hitchens&diff=next&oldid=660196441). I had a look at your user page on Commons, and there is an explanation (albeit from a template) as to why it was deleted (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clockback). My knowledge of Commons is limited, so I can only suggest a re-upload with an even more careful search of the intricacies of their copyright rules. 58.7.58.183 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
==Yes, well thanks a lot for nothing much, but the picture was cleared through wikimedia, hence the filename given to it https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SidneySussex.jpg Which was helpfully deleted by the bureaucrat who pointlessly removed it. == Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Peter Hitchens because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The talkpage is the place for discussing issues, not the article itself. Please stop adding contents about a dispute/need for help at the page, as you've done [1], [2], [3], [4].
If you read my talkpage comment at Talk:Peter Hitchens, I've told you who looks to have deleted the image. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, be aware of WP:3RR, which says you should not revert content more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Your request for help is valid at the article talkpage, but not the article itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Then stop removing it, and I won't need to. If you can't help. why not just stay away? I'm trying to attract the attention of someone helpful. I've asked for your help. If you won't give it, please let me carry on seeking someone who will. What good do you think you are doing? Clockback (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've told you who deleted the file, they're probably the only person who knows why it was deleted. As I haven't seen the file, this is the best help I could give. Also, nowhere on their Commons talkpage does it say they've left. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)