User talk:Chrisieboy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Italian orders of knighthood FL STATUS

ive started working on this article because i think we can get it to FL status. i have done some work with the references and footnotes. I need you to fix the picture copyright issue and put alt text in atleast one of the images of the badges and i'll try to follow your style for the other one. Please also expand the article by putting a little history at the beginning of the two main sections. Please also add more reference, adding the url will be enought because i will fix them and add all the relevant info for each reference. I hope we can have a good collaboration and get this article to FL status quickly. Mephiston999 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please tell me the number of the references that you consider convenience links?Mephiston999 (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:CroceVittorioVeneto.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Orders of Italy

• Please read article Military order. About your edits in Military Order of Italy, understand, that this national order was not "Christian order of knighthood that is founded for crusading, i.e. propagating and/or defending the faith", and cannot be in category Military orders.

Before reverting, use talk page first. --Yopie (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chrisieboy. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Knights

I (not Dabomb87) closed it because no further comments had been made for some time and it needed to be "refreshed". Don't take it personally, I'd suggest relisting it, nothing preventing you from doing that, and hopefully it'll get more interest and a stronger feeling of consensus to support its promotion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, although I'm a little disappointed with your decision to close it. It did have a couple of supports (three including my own) and no opposition after a month. Your own comments were also all addressed and, to be honest, it will probably attract even less interest next time around. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to renominate. Because the list's topic is so obscure, you may have to do some "reviewer recruiting" in the form of neutrally worded messages to relevant WikiProjects and interested editors, requesting reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You might be surprised. Many FLCs that fail the first time because of lack of consensus usually pass easily the second time. A recent example: List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) (FLC1, FLC2). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And looking at the FLC, I agree that perhaps it could have been kept open until the Saturday set of closures, but I don't fault TRM's reasoning either. The 1-month-old FLC was stale, and two independent supports (the nominator's support is assumed and given less weight) doesn't quite reach the level of consensus a director looks for. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

In which category at Wikipedia:Featured lists should List of Italian orders of knighthood go? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Social sciences and society (Awards, decorations and vexillology). Chrisieboy (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but which subcategory: Awards, Military decorations, Vexillology, or should I create a misc. section? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with Awards, but it's your call. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with your expertise and put it in Awards. Congrats on the FL. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers :-) and thanks for all your hard work at FLC. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks—but I just went back on what I said earlier, and created a new "other decorations" category (I think "decoration" is a more accurate keyword as), in which I put this list. Hope you don't mind too much. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack Hunt School

Thank you for your friendly edit summary. I could point you to WP:AGF, and to these search results]--as I explained in my edit summary, I tried. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Stagecoach in Peterborough Route 7

I have declined your speedy deletion on this, because your reason ("because it is a bus route") is not a valid speedy reason. Please check out WP:CSD. Also, you should not blank an article you are nominating for speedy, unless it is a G10 attack page; in other cases, just add the db tag at the top. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

National Westminster Bank

Chrisieboy - You are far too quick to undo the relevant and pertinent edits of others. You are not undoing vandalism, you are creating it ! I will not ignore your actions which are a misuse of delegation. I have edited 'NatWest' several times with information sourced verbatim from a BBC News archive. I was merely editing in facts that were salient to the article, and previously unreported. If it is removed again I will take the matter further. I am a responsible editor and I will not be treated otherwise. This is your last warning. veracitycounts 13.22 23 july 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veracitycounts (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a blatant copyright violation; do not reinsert it or your account/s will be blocked. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is unbelievable ! Chrisieboy, you need to apply some common nous. I have edited hundreds of articles, responsibly sourced and referenced in this manner. I am finished with Wikipedia if this absurdity prevails. I will contact the BBC and seek their view on matters. Blatant copyright violation my a--- ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veracitycounts (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now obtained independent advice for the avoidance of doubt. I am told informally that my edit input was categorically not in breach of copyright. I understand that nominal quotations, such as the one I used, and where the document is already posted on the Web, are regarded as 'fair use'. However, I tire of these silly exchanges, life (mine at least) has more to offer in my seventh decade, than combating officious trivia of this nature. I would rather leave Chrisieboy and Wikipedia in peace to pursue their agendas. One thing is certain -they will be all the poorer for stifling respectable editors from making responsible editorial additions. (Veracitycounts (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Chrisieboy - having now contacted a bona fide administrator, I am told that my edit simply required quotation marks , or a couple of my own words inserted. Hardly a "blatant" copyright violation. You really should learn to express yourself in a manner which is more coherent, and not given to raising the hackles of other editors. Was "blatant" really the most apt adjective in these circumstances. Furthermore, I understand that you are not an administrator, merely masquerading as one. (Veracitycounts (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

I thought you promised to leave me in peace! For the record, I was not "masquerading" as an administrator and you were told (here and here) that it was copyright infringement. Please discuss controversial edits and try to build consensus on the talk page first; the revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. You also state that you "have edited hundreds of articles ... in this manner" which is worrying — can you please provide some examples. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Administrator - Moonriddengirl, who informed me helpfully of precisely what was required for this edit. 'It only rquires quotation marks' she said, alternatively I could 'insert a couple of my own words'. Clearly you have an issue with any edits to this particular site, and I have to wonder what your agenda is ? Perhaps you would help out this old goffer, and format it for me. (Veracitycounts (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

This is what Moonriddengirl advised : 'The policies and guidelines developed to deal with this are by no means meant to discourage your contribution. In a case like this, it's a simple matter of adding quotation marks where needed'. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veracitycounts (talk • contribs)

Copied from User_talk:Veracitycounts#National_Westminster_Bank:

'Why are you so determined to insert this statement? I note it is the only contribution you have made to the encyclopedia'. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Those who followed the hostile takeover of NatWest by RBS, will know that the CEO, Derek Wanless, was a critical ingredient in the mix. It was widely and authoritatively reported that Wanless' misjudgements whilst CEO at NatWest, with ill conceived mergers, and high risk forays into investment banking, decimated its share value and led to the bank falling prey to a succession of predators, ultimately Fred Goodwin at RBS.

Wanless went off to join Northern Rock after he was ousted, from where he was to be ousted yet again in 2007. I could write a book on the banking misjudgements of Derek Wanless and Fred Goodwin, at NatWest, RBS and Northern Rock. What I did instead was to edit just a few words from a respected and authoritative BBC News article that provided succinct reference to Wanless' ousting in the period of the NatWest takeover. It is highly pertinent, albeit, omitted from the raw article. Little did I realise that I would have some busybody named 'Chriseboy' emerge from the ether and vandalise my edit. Chrisieboy - you need to understand that substance is infinitely more important than style, never more so than in Wikipedia articles. I relish honest and factual information, first and foremost that is my forte, the 'nice to have' sanitisation and polish is yours. Now, please take your petty nit-picking elsewhere. If you don't like a format, for goodness sake just change it, provided you do not alter the sense of the edit I would not take umbrage. Similarly, if quotation marks are required - just insert them ! You see, I am quite a reasonable person until someone raises my ire.

Furthermore, the vast majority of editors are simple lay folk like myself, who are not young geeks, well honed in Wikepedia's 'mangled slang'. Please try to avoid using esoteric terms like 'sock puppet' and 'edit warring', and utilise instead the rich abundance of English vocabulary to express yourself, preferably in a friendlier and more conciliatory tone.

Finally, I do not make mendacious statements. When I said that I have made many factual edits I meant it. I generally assist a family member whilst he is logged in separately, hence, even Poirot would not associate me with those edits. The fact is, this is the first time I have had an 'issue'. Chrisieboy - if you attempt to 'undo' this edit again you will rue your mistake. Please do not test my resolve and tenacity. Thank you. (I have copied this post to Moonriddengirl) (Veracitycounts (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

Please try to avoid ad hominem arguments and vaguely threatening remarks like those made above; they do nothing to further your case or your credibility. If you are going to participate in Wikipedia you should be familiar with its policies which include the terms you refer to as "mangled slang." For instance, the use of multiple accounts is generally considered a serious breach of community trust — what others have you edited from? Chrisieboy (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As this investigation "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Veracitycounts" is closed and Veracitycounts is blocked I will say no more and take the page off my watch list. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pages cannot be moved by copying and pasting the contents

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Longthorpe, Cambridgeshire a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

Sorry for using the template, but it's the easiest way to get all the relevant policy links in place. In this case, the target cannot be overwritten by non-administrators, because it now has a page history. If you could explain why the move should take place, please do so on Talk:Longthorpe, Cambridgeshire. If there are other Peterborough villages that use the (Village), Peterborough naming convention, list them on the talk page: that's a strong reason to move the page for the sake of consistency. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Huntingdon and Peterborough

Hello, I changed the date format to be consistant with the rest of the page which is in the usual British format. What was your rationale for reverting me? On the Soke of Peterborough, I think 'still' implies the C of E is wrong, but I'm not particularly fussed. Bevo74 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My error, now reverted. Thanks for pointing it out. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain / Kingdom of Great Britain

Hi there

I don't know where we go with this discussion as we both seem strongly convinced that the evidence backs our case, and it is difficult to see a compromise that would work. Thanks, however, for continuing to have the discussion in a perfectly civil way - not all editors are able or willing to do that! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and likewise :-) Chrisieboy (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Peterborough

Hi Chrisieboy. As a major contributor to the Petrborough article you may be interested in the current discussion about it.--Kudpung (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)