Canterbury Tail (talk | contribs) |
203.171.93.29 (talk) →You're famous: new section |
||
Line 356: | Line 356: | ||
: I'm not reinstating it, as I never removed it. I'm not 100% convinced it is of great encyclopaedic interest to the article, but I wouldn't remove it. Others may, and that is a content dispute. [[User:Ben W Bell|<font color="Blue">'''Canterbury Tail'''</font>]] [[User talk:Ben W Bell|''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'']] 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
: I'm not reinstating it, as I never removed it. I'm not 100% convinced it is of great encyclopaedic interest to the article, but I wouldn't remove it. Others may, and that is a content dispute. [[User:Ben W Bell|<font color="Blue">'''Canterbury Tail'''</font>]] [[User talk:Ben W Bell|''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'']] 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== You're famous == |
|||
I just stumbled upon this: http://nofuninpublic.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/get-a-life-ben-w-bell/ |
|||
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, though, because I don't this that tosser is a fan. Keep up the good work, though! :) |
Revision as of 04:15, 17 April 2009
Note for all users I shall make any replies to comments on my talk page here on my talk page. I feel this allows everyone to see a consistent conversation rather than one spread across multiple pages.
Archive 1 - Beginning to September 2006
Archive 2 - September 2006 to 10 January 2007
Archive 3 - 11 January 2007 to 25 April 2007
Archive 4 - 26 April to 2 July 2007
Archive 5 - 3 July 2007 - 30 October 2007
Archive 6 - 31 October 2007 - 15 March 2008
Archive 7 - 16 March 2008 - 31 August 2008
Archive 8 - 1 September 2008 - 26 January 2009
Bet-at-home.com
Hi, you deleted the entry "Bet-at-home.com". Log:
- 14:17, 29 January 2009 Ben W Bell (Talk | contribs) deleted "Bet-at-home.com" (G11: Blatant advertising: full of copyrighted materials, blatant advertising and basically a corporate sales page)
Can you please explain in detail, why you deleted the page? There was no advertising on the new page whatsoever. Moreover, the facts stated in this article are official details about the company. I don't really see any difference in content between the bet-at-home.com article and other articles about betting companies (like BWin, e.g.). Can you tell me why you deleted the page? I somehow got the feeling that you don't even read the whole article. Sorry, but this deletion was far from justifiable. --JulianBAH (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article made no claims to notability of the organisation, no reason it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. It also contained what can only be described as a company portfolio of information that would be of use to stock purchasers, and graphics that are obviously copyright infringement. Portions of text and complete graphics have been lifted from said website and pasted into Wikipedia, which is copyright infringement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to promote a company, especially when it would appear you have a conflict of interest in said company (judging by your username.) Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- As for the images and the copyright infringement: I have been granted the rights to upload this images and provide them in this article (they are not lifted). However, I marked them as "non-free". The information on the page are facts, no advertising. You stated (in the deletion log) that this is advertising. I guess one has to distinguish between information/facts and advertising. Company "promotion" would be something completely different. Don't really see your point in deleting this article, however. --JulianBAH (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not know that you have permission to post those graphics, and has no way of verifying that information either. You do realise that any information you put on Wikipedia in that way, including graphics, becomes free to all under the public licenses agreed upon uploading, if they are company information this may not be what was intended. As for advertising, that and promotion amount to the same thing. The article was written and displayed as one big promotion for the company, not as a neutral encyclopaedic entry. The financial data, growth, graphs etc are something you would find on a stock portfolio and company prospectus, not an encyclopadia article. Also there is still no claim to notability of the company, plus the conflict of interest to contend with. Please read WP:CORP, WP:MOS, WP:COI, WP:Notability, WP:VER and WP:Advert. Canterbury Tail talk 14:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they are marked as not free for use, which means they will be deleted as they are not allowed on Wikipedia. Check the tags you've added to them. See WP:ICT. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then, please, tell me, why (for example) this logo hasn't been deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bwin.svg It's also marked "non-free" --JulianBAH (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- It has been marked with a different non-free rational than the option you selected when you uploaded the images. A corporate logo can be allowed under a certain set of circumstances, which this one has been marked as. Of the images you uploaded, the logo can be marked with the same rational tags as that image to make it allowable for Wikipedia to use it, as a logo is considered different to other images, but the graphs, charts and tables you uploaded can't. Canterbury Tail talk 15:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You should check the references. The other two never will, nor admit that they did
Simple to find with Google Book Search. You can skip the last step! Wotapalaver (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've got no problems, a reference is provided as is the point of references and abiding by Wikipedia's reference policies. If someone is telling fibs in references that's another issue, but it's not up to you to provide the details behind a reference to someone who wants to check it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. You can help out and support reference over weaselly POV garbage. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way. I have personal experience that editors can tell fibs about references and it's perfectly fine. Admins have no problem with that. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I no, I've checked enough in my time. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Censoring Moon Hoax Evidence
You know how many times I see the big news groups like CNN NBC etc. use youtube vids in their reports? Obviously the fact that the "Astronauts" are moving at the same speed as in any moon mission, the dropping of items at Earth's gravity is what is happening.
Pretending your right and it's speed up during the falling of the items, then the men are floating and moving WAAAY to slow to be on the moon...maybe they are on some mini astoid, which further's the evidence.
I suggest you make a counter claim, as is the format of this whole page. If not, take it to the talk page. Sfvace (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Republic part
Hi, Ben. Could you show me where on the page it prevents misinterpretation? [1] ~ R.T.G 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're saying. Republic of Ireland isn't the official name of the state, it is Ireland. The only reason we tend to use Republic of Ireland on a page is when there is room for confusion between Ireland (state), Ireland (island) and we have ongoing items involving Northern Ireland as well. However since this is about the country/state of Ireland there is no reason not to use Ireland within the article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- There isn't a possibility of confusion, that's why we don't need the word Republic, just Ireland will do fine. Canterbury Tail talk 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Ben. I'm curious about that IP.86.., as I'm guessing it's the same long winded IP from months ago. (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah definitely someone we've seen before. However I'm sorry, the core tenant of Wikipedia is verifiability, if it can't be verified it can't go in. Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- My suspicion keeps pointing me toward Dunlavin Green. But, I'll leave things as is. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I was starting out a new page and doing some research. The page was deleted with no warning. I was not advertising and I have no affiliation with the software. I would appreciate some warning before deletion in future as some other considerate administrators normally do.--█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█ █▄▄ 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- If an article is created in the main namespace then it should be at least fully formed enough to avoid falling into the speedy deletion criteria. A short line about a piece of free JAVA software, with no claims of notability and no third party references, falls into the category and could be deleted by any administrator that comes across it. In order to avoid this happening you should create the articles in your own user namespace and only move it to the main area when it is created enough to stand on its own as an article, otherwise it does just look like someone promoting a piece of non-notable software. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism, Bias, and Abuse of Power
No where does it say it's ok for anyone to block me without warning... Did you also ban the user who started the edit war? Better yet, did you block the user and delete the entry where the user sourced an entry, on the same moon hoax page, using a YOUTUBE video as the source? No? No wonder people critisize wikipedia. Sfvace (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- You may wish to check you facts. I never blocked you. Good day. Canterbury Tail talk 12:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Copy & Paste
There is no problem with copy and paste moving - it is allowed. And, 'moving' made no difference in the case of CLG Ógra Colmcille.--Theosony (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. I noticed the move you made on CLG Ogra Colmcille. The intention was good, but the execution was not correct unfortunately. If a page is at an incorrect title, as this one was, it need to go to another page. In this case the page should be moved, not copied and pasted. Copying and pasting the page, and redirecting to the new page means the article moves, but the history doesn't. Doing a move function, using the move button at the top of the page, will move the entire article history and all to the new location.
This would be normally how it is achieved. Now in this instance as a normal access level user, you wouldn't have been able to perform the move. When moving, the target page title needs to be non-existent as you cannot overwrite. In this case the new page CLG Ógra Colmcille did indeed exist (as a redirect.) In instances such as this you will need to ask an administrator to delete the target page (if it is non-controversial) in preparation for the move.
I've done the deletion and the move now, so everything is fine with the pages, just wanted to let you know the procedure for these things. Keep up the good editing. Canterbury Tail talk 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry? As for multiple pages, I typed the notice on your page before you posted to my talk page, but had a meeting in between doing it and saving it. I did what was needed to fix a cut and paste move which destroyed the page history as is procedure. Otherwise the page history does not contain the edits that were made to the article. Cut and paste moves are not procedure, and should never be performed. I performed no unnecessary procedure, as you claim it, but the necessary move procedure. See WP:MOVE and Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves. Canterbury Tail talk 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:MOVE to see why copy and paste moves are not allowed. Also please do not accuse other editors of performing unnecessary edits, especially when they are performing edits according to process and are actually trying to assist you at the time. Canterbury Tail talk 22:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please show me where they are allowed? They are only used when an article is being split into smaller articles, and should never be used for full article moves. I have pointed you to the appropriate Wikipedia policy pages. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edit
Hi! I saw your name sometimes and saw your recent edit too. Although the site does not look like a dictionary, it actually is a very good dictionary site. I always use the site or this as my favorite online E/J dictionaries. Put any English/Japanese word in the search window and press Enter. For examples:these are the result of bell, ベル, and 鐘. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay then, fair enough. I trust your edits. Canterbury Tail talk 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that
I didn't realize. I'll be more careful, in the future then. Apologies for making an upstanding member of the community like you have to clean up my mess ;_; It must have been a lot of trouble for you... 98.208.65.56 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Brunei Music Society
The reference to our website was deleted on th basis of copying of content on the old site bmspresents.com. We are having trouble getting this site taken down (access was blocked to our members on the basis that viruses were being introduced to the server). As we could not update we have done a mild redisign of the site and hosted it elsewhere. but it seems some scrimony stll exists so the bms presents is not yet closed. Please note that on that site the copyright note says copyright to Brunei Music Society. This is of course repeated on our new site, bruneimusicsociety.org - fundamentally the same contents but with a new look and updated to current committee etc. We would like people to be able to check our details from Wikipedia and there was no link in the existing page. I doubt you have the time to check out the details of constitution, chairperson etc from the site but if i can send you anything else as verification, I will. The note about relasing the "article" is now on the index page of bruneimusicsociety.org. I can do nothing about BMS presents. 2boyces (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot copy information from a website and put it on Wikipedia. You say you represent the BMS, but we have no evidence of this, plus the information is copyrighted so you cannot put it up verbatim on Wikipedia. Also since you are representing the BMS, please read WP:ORG and WP:COI before starting an article on it to assure you adhere to Wikipedia policies. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The question maybe how to get the verification to you. All societies in the Sultanate of Brunei must be registered with the Government, and records updated each year, so the Committee members are in a sense verifiable with the Ministry of Home Affairs, and my name has been forwarded to them, but Brunei Gov is not very web savvy yet. Of course as I am rsponsible for the website, I can put any names on the committee page I suppose. I think you are suggesting that the fastest solution is simply to paraphrase the material - but then can I point to the Current site - which is the point of making any change after all. 2boyces (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes paraphrase the information in your own words. The thing is that you have no way of proving to Wikipedia you are the copyright holder and are releasing the words freely. Plus there is the fact that if you do release them to Wikipedia, you do so under the free licenses and therefore can't claim copyright of them. It gets very complex. So basically reword stuff for Wikipedia, or they run the very real and proper risk of being removed for copyright infringement. Same with pictures. I'm not claiming you are not who you say you are, I'm sure you are, however Wikipedia has to be very careful with regards to copyright.
- In addition since you are so heavily involved with the organisation you must be very careful in the creation of the page under the guidelines of WP:ORG and WP:COI as you have a conflict of interest, and must be very careful to put the article as a neutral encyclopaedic article, and not in anyway promoting or advertising the organisation. This isn't to say that you can't put an article up on the organisation, assuming it is referenced and meets the WP:Notability guidelines, just you need to be sure it meets with the standards and policies. Good luck and happy editing. Any problems, just ask. Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Mysticshade
The Greylightnings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account is also him, see the history of Dublin and the edits to my talk page. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I know, he's been posting the copyrighted images on Commons under that name. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Has now. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: User:GreyPoint - looks like it. There are edits to the same articles (immediately following Mysticshade...), edits to fiddle with image locations (it was edits like these that first made me think Mysticshade and User:Nimbley6 might be related. Is there an open WP:SPI report for Mysticshade or an earlier sock? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Likely according to a checkuser on Commons, well likely for the account that uploaded an image GreyPoint added here five minutes later.. O Fenian (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Errr, yeah , very duck-like edits here. Actually, to be fair, his obsession with updating GDP figures is the one place where he is quoting the sources, but as I said on ANI, GreyPoint has hit almost all of the right buttons, bar uploading images on Wikipedia. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Editing to add) There is a second account that has only two edits, but is a probable, based on the GDP edit pattern. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
![]() |
Hello, Ben W Bell. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. |
Looking for a viewpoint
In assessing new article for the WikiProject Ireland, I noticed the text dumps on Human trafficking in Israel and Human trafficking in Ireland and saw that these were straight cut and pastes from the source with not even one iota of a rewrite. I was going to speedy the Irish article but decided a prod would be better, but the creating editor Calliopejen1 has removed the prod claiming that "cut and paste has always been an acceptable way to start an article". He has also tried to justify his actions to another editor by writing: "I do that because that's what I feel is most productive for me to do". I have asked for some guideline or policy that says this is ok, especially when the other similar articles I have looked at have not had any substantial editing done since they were created with a cut and paste text dump. Even though the source for the Human Trafficing articles is in the public domain, I don't think this is a proper encyclopaedic method of creating articles and unless these human trafficing articles are rewritten they should be deleted en masse. What is you view and advise on how to proceed? TIA ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- They are direct text dumps from a copyrighted source (even says copyright at the bottom of the pages they are lifted from.) They need deleted as we cannot accept them. I'm sure the topic is notable, but the text is all lifted from a copyrighted source.
- A copy and paste would be acceptable if the source was public domain, that wouldn't be an issue, however it is off a page with a copyright notice, and no proof (although indicated) of original source. Since the page has a copyright on it we can't assume it is actually from the US Department of State. If it was it would be acceptable and not a copyright violation, so would be okay (though not ideal), however the pages give every indication they are copyrighted works, and no indication that they are not. Canterbury Tail talk 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the US state department link that was on the Irish article is to this PD page, so deleting may be premature as this is clearly PD. While it may have been ok to do text dumps of Encyclopaedia Brittanica and other PD sources in 2002, in 2008 this seems like a very bad, un-encyclopaedic way to do things. Many of these pages are never even copyedited nor are any substantial changes made so that such dumps just seem made by convenience as stated by the creating editor here. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't the source I found, if that's the case then maybe I should undelete it. I agree it's not ideal, and in fact I do find myself wondering if it is encyclopaedic or not. Wikipedia is not a repository of US State department archives. However there is nothing explicitly against doing so, even if it's not a great solution. Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that this sort of article creation is a problem and there should be some policy or guidelines. Where would we discuss it? ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure, probably at Village Pump somewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that this sort of article creation is a problem and there should be some policy or guidelines. Where would we discuss it? ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't the source I found, if that's the case then maybe I should undelete it. I agree it's not ideal, and in fact I do find myself wondering if it is encyclopaedic or not. Wikipedia is not a repository of US State department archives. However there is nothing explicitly against doing so, even if it's not a great solution. Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the US state department link that was on the Irish article is to this PD page, so deleting may be premature as this is clearly PD. While it may have been ok to do text dumps of Encyclopaedia Brittanica and other PD sources in 2002, in 2008 this seems like a very bad, un-encyclopaedic way to do things. Many of these pages are never even copyedited nor are any substantial changes made so that such dumps just seem made by convenience as stated by the creating editor here. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit war
There is a an edit war going on at Wikipedia:Public domain image resources concerning the placement of an entry being moved by 2 anonIP users. Both seem to be from changing IPs within same their own IP blocks. Because of this I cannot say either have actually broken the 3RR rule as such. Most recently Special:Contributions/217.132.45.73 and Special:Contributions/89.216.66.36 but the page history clearly shows the pattern. Hope you can assist. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not really much to do. They're not exactly vandalising, though it is disruptive editing. Put it on the Admin noticeboard and see if anyone wants to do anything about it. I'm not entirely sure about it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
City of Derry Airport
It appears that the airports web site page with the operational data is somewhat out of date. Notice that is indicates there are two runways and the disclaimer at the bottom says "The above information is not for flight planning purposes. Full operational and technical information about the City of Derry Airport can be found in our entry in the UK AIP and NOTAMs." If you go to NATS AIS and look at the text or the aerodrome chart it is clear that there is only one runway 08/26 which is 1,967 m (6,453 ft). Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. Canterbury Tail talk 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realise that you and Canterbury Tail were the same person. I saw the signature before but never hovered over it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh problems. I have no issues with you correcting me, it's not a concern at all. Just when anon's come along and change data like that it's a concern to me which was why I reverted. Canterbury Tail talk 12:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually there are 3 runways at the airport. Two serviceable and one non serviceable. The main operational runway designated 08/26 is indeed 6,453ft long and is used by all commercial aircraft. The shorter runway designated 02/20 is 3,955ft long and is very occasionally used by small private aircraft when the wind direction suits its orientation. It is however more often used by helicopters when approaching from the south and when air taxiing to and fro from the flight school! http://www.fallingrain.com/icao/EGAE.html --78.33.101.58 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can I humbly suggest that the article is updated accordingly! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
"Plans have recently been announced in the Derry Journal that Derry City Council, who own and operate the airport are tendering for a development plan which could see a Hotel, Aircraft Painting Hangers, Freight Buildings and Office Accommodation built in the next 10 years." Speculation! Furthermore stating that the Journal has speculated about the announcement of flights to Edinburgh and Manchester is not speculation, it is the reporting of a fact, the fact that someone has speculated. That is not the same as speculation itself. Were I to have written that flights might be announced that would be speculation but when I link to a newspaper article that is not speculation regardless of the content of the newspaper article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.201.41 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This is all pie in the sky and was talked about prior to the credit crunch taking effect. There are no genuine long term plans to expand the airport and anyone who believes the contrary is deluded. There will be further route cuts in the near future if things go on the way they have been for very much longer. The Council cannot sustain a loss-making operation indefinitely and the likes of Ryanair will not tolerate unreasonable rate hikes. The rate payers will also not tolerate having to sustain a white elephant!--78.33.101.58 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Derry's Walls
There is an on going dispute on the Derry article about whether Derry's walls are the most complete in The British Isles/Ireland. While Derry's are the most complete in Ireland, I believe Conwy in Wales is the most complete in Britain and verifiably so to the point where they are a UNESCO world heritage site[1] but the dispute has grinded into an editing war. Perhaps you could take a look and weigh in on one side or other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.186.78 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
O Fenian has reverted the Derry article three times in a row. Could you ban him please as they would seek to do to me if I did the same........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.190.81 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Geoff Harden
Hi Ben, I spotted the edits you made to the Geoff Harden article, including the change of category.... I understand if this is regular practice on Wikipedia, but Geoff was known far more as a journalist in Northern Ireland, with less recognition in England. Is there perhaps another category that I could apply here? Because otherwise it seems as if both British and Northern Irish categories should be applied -- especially since he spent the larger portion of his life over here. Thanks, Fattonyni (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- The category British Journalists should cover it okay. Sometimes country cats are for nationality, sometimes for just born there, they can be confusing sometimes. Canterbury Tail talk 12:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- However if you wish to change it back, I'll not stop you if you think it's appropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The Insurance Institute of Canada
Hi, cab you please explain why you deleted this posting? Based on the post rules I have reviewed, I can't figure out why it would be deleted for the copyright reason you said. --Errybi (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was a direct copy and paste from another source. This means it was a copyright violation. Canterbury Tail talk 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I am the original author of this material which appears on Lucis Trust website - http://www.lucistrust.org/en/forums/problems_of_humanity/capital_labour_employment/bank_for_international_ideas_for_sustainable_economic_development -
if any one reads the article they can see my name at the top Leonard S. Johnson Posted on: Thursday 11 September 2008 12:00:39 pm and verify my identity.
--Bankleonard (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC) --Bankleonard (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- We only have your word for that unfortunately, and currently no way to prove you are who you say you are. Anyway, if you are then you have a conflict of interest in posting the materials, so you should read the linked section before posting the material. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Characters of Watchmen
Hi! You said the page was "(rv inaccurate uses of pronouns, edits against MOS and changes that are not accurate. Plus this is about the comic series, not the movie) (undo)" - AFAIK it is about all versions of Watchmen - The comic details are first as it is the primary version, but you have the film and the unproduced scripts by Hamm and Hayter as well. There are sources that cover the scripts and the events that happen in them, so I cited the sources in regards to major changes in the scripts. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The main edits I reverted were incorrect use of pronouns (using The when characters aren't known by the title The), changing names to the movie version, plus making edits against the MOS. Canterbury Tail talk 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
UWO libraries
I just wanted to say, thanks for your assistance on this and for your willingness to work with the new user. I don't know if a case can be made for the inclusion of any or all of these libraries, but you're absolutely correct that notability has to be asserted and proved with reliable sources, and the user in question apparently needed to have that explained. As I said to him/her, "We only want notable topics, but we want all of them we can get" -- so I hope Wikipedia gets something useful out of this exercise. Together, I think we can help the new user to make that happen if it deserves to happen. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC).
Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{notability}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 03:08 4 April 2009 (UTC).
- K, thanks for the heads up. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
My image Car and Driver Vega GT -0 was deleted. It is my non-free scan of an image (magazine photo-car and driver) taken 33 years ago of a vehicle that won a race. It is not replacable with another image because there is only one ever published of that specific car. I need the image in the article as the subsection is about that particular car that won the Car and Driver Showroom Stock Challenge III in 1974. i listed a full rational why it should be in the article. in the deleted file it says other images are avaialable. the image is not replacable. what do i have to do to keep this in the article? please help. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
- I am sure you will review this user's talk page and associated logs but he has consistently uploaded many of the same images, sometimes under different names, and most have been deleted. The article is now down to one non-free image and that should be enough to comply with WP:NFC minimal usage criteria. He just does not seem to understand the limited use of non-free images, has been blocked for upload abuse and has been removing deletion tags on obviously commercial photograph for which he has failed to provide any source info. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I was aware of the users history before deleting the image. Images of the Vega are available, and it is not necessary to have one of a particular car that won a particular race. If that was the only available image of this car make ever, then a case can certainly be made, but the image isn't necessary for the article and therefore the rationale doesn't apply. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The photo that was deleted 72 Vega Kammback is not a magazine scan as is stated in deleted file. The magazine photo is the 73 Vega GT showroon stock #0 black and white photo which is a non-free image and was deleted after a long try to keep it. I will try to get permission from car and driver to keep that one. the 72 vega kammback is a scan I made on my Cannon 310 printer of my photograph taken in 1973 of my grandfathers first Vega. I listed ALL this information in the file. In the discussion on these photos it was determined that they are mine if you check. I resorted to scans of my old photos, and I have plenty of them, as well as newer digital photos.
Go to Chevrolet Vega Please look at the two images of the green Vega wagon in 1970-1977. the licence plate is the same in the 1973 deleted photo (on top), taken by me as lower one, (with me in photo), taken a year later, in 1974. I think this proves it's my photo and not just a scan. I would like the top deleted image to stay.. it is mine, taken by me as stated in the file.. the car was my grandfathers- as stated in file. Stifle is tagged five of my free images. some are 30+ year old photos and recent digital photos, not scans from magazines or the web. Also please help with other tags on my free images. These are my cars past and present..I can prove it. I'm a bit upset this image was deleted because I'm still into these cars after 30 years because my Grandfather had two of them and I was very close to him. His other Vega he had in 75 is also marked for deletion..the blue 74 GT. I took this photo in Bklyn in front of my fathers house.(by the way..I have photos of the 74 GT in front of the same house (my grandfathers house) as the deleted green wagon to also prove these are my photos taken by me. The photos are sentimental...you could say. I have enough photographs on this car to use my own..I've collected everthing on this car for almost 40 years including old photos of Vegas I've owned and current digital photos of the two Vegas I currently own. Both on Cars domain.com and both are in this article. One of my own car's images is marked for deletion! The 71 blue Vega Panel. Go to Chevrolet Vega select Millioth Vega blog external link. In the blog you will see text mentioning my name and links to the 71 blue Vega panel on cars domain.com Two of those images (which I took) are in this article as well, and one is up for deletion! My name is listed as owner in blog and Cars domain..please try to remove these tags on my free-images. I'm getting worn down. also, please check the discussion on 71 Vega panel express.jpg A determination was made on these free images. Thanks (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Your comments
It is difficult to find a consensus when an IP hopping edit warring block evading editor will not accept the use of British Isles. O Fenian (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but you still need to abide by the rules unless the edits were pure vandalism. They are edit disputes, not vandalism, so... Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good unblock Ben and you should be commended for it, as you are aware it is very hard to deal with IP's as most times they don't even respond to messages left on their page. BigDuncTalk 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know it is, the problem here is this is still a content and edit dispute, not blatant vandalism removal. If he's careful, then it's fine, but even if people are in the right the rules still apply and I will apply them to both sides (which is why I've blocked everything under the IP as well to see who falls out of the woodwork, as those IPs are not new editors.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- But is the addition of unsourced OR and controversial at that not a form of vandalism? BigDuncTalk 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unsourced material is added to Wikipedia every minute of every day. As is controversial material. Doesn't automatically make it vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are two different disputes being referred to. My comments refer to the first one, specifically this editor who will continue to remove British Isles to the point of tedium, as they have done just again. O Fenian (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unsourced material is added to Wikipedia every minute of every day. As is controversial material. Doesn't automatically make it vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- But is the addition of unsourced OR and controversial at that not a form of vandalism? BigDuncTalk 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know it is, the problem here is this is still a content and edit dispute, not blatant vandalism removal. If he's careful, then it's fine, but even if people are in the right the rules still apply and I will apply them to both sides (which is why I've blocked everything under the IP as well to see who falls out of the woodwork, as those IPs are not new editors.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good unblock Ben and you should be commended for it, as you are aware it is very hard to deal with IP's as most times they don't even respond to messages left on their page. BigDuncTalk 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I must congratulate the IP for tidying up the article; the inclusion of the term "British Isles" is clearly in breach of WP:NPOV, provocative, disruptive and calculated to give offence. It is also totally unnessesary. If I were awarding prizes for "vandalism" they'd go to those who insist on inserting (or restoring) unessesary political pov to the article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- But I cannot congratulate you, Ben, on yet again protecting the wrong version! This time of the Derry article. I haven't been paying as much attention to this article as I should have, but I'll make amends in future. When is the protection expired? (Or maybe you'd remove the unnessary POV yourself?) Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah, as you know a protected version is not an advocation of the version, but just the version it was on when it was protected. Protection does not mean the version is the supported version, just what it happened to be at the time it was locked. I shall not edit any perceived POV one way or another, unless the community comes to some consensus, with references on the item, or see what happens when the protection expires. Canterbury Tail talk 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
User talk:78.33.101.58
User talk:78.33.101.58 is requesting an unblock. They have unequivocally stated that they have no intention of continued edit warring on the article in question, and seem to have a full grasp of the WP:3RR policy. I believe that, based on their statements, they can be trusted to be unblocked at this time. What think you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
'Free Derry' Talk Page content now being deleted?
Can you please give me some advice on this as I understood the talk page was for exactly that, TALKING!--78.33.101.58 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Irish names
The IP editor that was removing Irish names now has an account, Cruthinforlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What do you suggest? O Fenian (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Warn him to stop it, and point them towards WP:IMOS. I believe that has something to say on the matter. Plus Irish does have a legal standing, and most of the names in NI come from Anglicised Irish names. Canterbury Tail talk 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could I offer some comment to this. I have warned O Fenian about his continual reverts. He/she has again broken the 3RR rule and continues to do so unabated. This individual follows my edits around like a TROLL and are becoming a nuisance.--78.33.101.58 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- With reference to the Irish place names. The village of Eglinton has been wrongly assigned such an Irish/Gaelic name when this is incorrect. The name Eglinton has NO Irish equivalent and was NOT derived from Ireland. The name is of pure Norman extract with absolutely no Irish connection prior to the village being named by the 3rd Earl of Eglinton.--78.33.101.58 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
3RR WARNING - O Fenian
I have had to issue another warning to O Fenian in the following terms!
![Warning](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Stop_hand.svg/30px-Stop_hand.svg.png)
You have repeatedly reverted genuine edits of factual verifiable information without discussion. If you wish to challange such information you must pursue WIKIPEDIA POLICY on such reverts.
You are guilty of breaking the 3RR rule..ie,3 reverts within a 24 hour period and can be blocked. i will be making a report on your unacceptable conduct which btw amounts to TROLLING. --78.33.101.58 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The "factual verifiable information" being the completely unsourced, and in the case of the latter, also not written in an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia..
- The Hope of Eglinton Orange Lodge was formed in the village on 6th May 1906. In 1910 the Lodge moved to the Willsboro Schoolhouse at nearby Campsie which was and remains the home of the local Masonic Lodge. In 1935 the Orange Lodge moved to a purpose built Orange Hall near the middle of Eglinton village where it remains today. The presence of the Orange Hall evidences a long and traditional protestant heritage within the village and surrounding area which continues to this day
- Throughout all these changes Eglinton has managed to maintain the appearance of a village albeit an ever expanding one!
- ..added to the Eglinton, County Londonderry article. This editor has been told several times about adding unsourced content, yet persists. I am not even approaching 3RR on any article, and neither do I intend to approach it. O Fenian (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Hope of Eglinton Orange Hall history is an important andreal part of the village and its history despite O Fenian and others attempting to deny its presence.
- http://citygrandlodge.com/764_history.html --78.33.101.58 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually O Fenian's edits to Eglinton are not in violation of the 3RR policy. He was reverting vandalism by yourself. Constant removal of the Irish names, a recognised language in Northern Ireland, from articles is vandalism. Please read WP:IMOS. Canterbury Tail talk 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, O Fenian is guilty of the 3RR rule break by constantly removing all references to the existence of the Orange Hall and Lodge in Eglinton. I suppose this entity isn't verified too? --78.33.101.58 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Secondly, I did not vandalize any pages. The use of an inappropriate Irish term for Eglinton is contrary to WIKIPEDIA policy. There is no Irish name for Eglinton, it is like saying that there is an Irish word for 'computer' or 'website'. Eglinton is a proper name and a wholly Norman name, it has no derived equivalent in Irish or Gaelic, to create one is simply nonsense. --78.33.101.58 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thirdly, you have not responded to my complaint concerning the user O Fenian constantly TROLLING my edits. It is very obvious.
- Actually O Fenian's edit history is actually linked to many of the pages you edit, and in fact they probably have a lot of them on their watchlist. Same reason you're edits have become familiar to myself as well. And it's not trolling of someone's edits to look at a disruptive editor and see what other edits they have made to see if they are appropriate for Wikipedia. Oh, and remember one thing, Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL encyclopaedia, not a republican voicebox, and not a unionist bastion, but a neutral encyclopaedia and we want to keep it that way. It is also not a soapbox, sounding board, forum or place to push ones individual opinions. Canterbury Tail talk 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- You will also find that I reinstated one of the IPs edits that another editor had reverted.
- Can you do something about this persistent addition of unsourced content please? This editor has been warned countless times about this already. O Fenian (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's the official name in Irish. O Fenian (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Northern Ireland does not acknowledge names attached to its towns and villages by a foreign government, Doire or Derry being the classic example. There is no alternative name for Eglinton and to create one is simply fiction. Maybe the 3rd Earl of Eglinton should have been known as Lord An Mhaith? If the Irish want to call British towns and villages something other than their proper given names then that is a matter for them. Such sentimental rubbish is certainly not material for inclusion within an encylopedia. Who calls Eglinton by the name An Mhaith anyway, certainly no-one in Northern Ireland! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, which is why it recognises them itself. Irish is a recognised language in Northern Ireland, and the consensus of Wikipedia editors is to include it in the article. If you don't like that then you may start a conversation in the relevant place (WP:IMOS) to have it changed, commenting on other user's talk pages and making personal attacks against other editors isn't the way to achieve it if you think it is a reasonable goal. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Eglinton Orange Hall
So are you going to reinstate the verified actual fact that Eglinton has an Orange Hall or maybe this is wishful thinking too?
"The Hope of Eglinton Loyal Orange LodgeOrange Lodge was formed in the village on 6th May 1906. In 1910 the Lodge moved to the Willsboro Schoolhouse at nearby Campsie which was and remains the home of the local Masonic Lodge. In 1935 the Orange Lodge moved to a purpose built Orange Hall near the middle of Eglinton village where it remains today." --78.33.101.58 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I await your advisement with interest.--78.33.101.58 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not reinstating it, as I never removed it. I'm not 100% convinced it is of great encyclopaedic interest to the article, but I wouldn't remove it. Others may, and that is a content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You're famous
I just stumbled upon this: http://nofuninpublic.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/get-a-life-ben-w-bell/
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, though, because I don't this that tosser is a fan. Keep up the good work, though! :)