User talk:Curuxz

Arch

Utilitarianism

Yes, I do generally subscribe to the utilitarian approach. Now, what I would really favor would be a hybrid theory of first a framework of fundamental rights, and then within that framework, we practice utilitarianism in a highly skillful fashion. And more than just theory, I favor us getting involved in all kinds of practical reforms, for example, addressing that most of our jobs are just a pale shadow of what they could be, that most "schools" are primarily about regimentation, and not about education, etc, etc, in so many life areas.

So, yeah, I would be interested in a blog (?), web community (?), something, where people could really have wide-ranging discussions and help each other get good at all of this. There may already be site(s) like this, if so, I'd very much like to know about them. Because of my current schedule, I would probably have to be an on-again, off-again participant, but I would be very happy to participate as I'm able. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftsbury Images

Hi, Thanks for the message. I would be very happy to see my images replaced with better ones on the Shaftesbury article. I happened to visit last week after a trip to Wardour Castle & took some snaps while waiting for the kids. The photos are mine (not very good I know) not from the Images of England site I just used that as references for the text.— Rod ^talk 16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem fine - you could just use the second one to illustrate both. I presume you are happy with the rules about copyright, copyleft/creative commons licencing etc?— Rod ^talk 16:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee class

Not a problem, the Royal Navy produced hundreds of small brigs, sloops, gunboats and what-have-you over the centuries. Getting them all recorded is going to take a while, so there are inevitably large (and sometimes huge) gaps in wikipedia's coverage. I filled in the 1808 ships (the smallest batch!) before getting tired, I might go back soon and work in the other 70-odd ones when I have time! But thanks for starting the stub, and at least providing the impetus for me to have a closer look at the class. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a welcome distraction when I should really be doing other things! Ah well. Certainly, if you wanted to forward that to me I could see about working up an article. There doesn't seem to be a problem with sources. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

According to the policies and guidelines , you were actually biting the newbies and also seemed a bit like personal attack, it advisable to tell the offender nicely and politely on what they are doing even if its not reciprocated..and if they continue, just report to AIV rather then making it worse :) ...--Comet styles 10:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftesbury links

Thanks for your message re Shaftesbury link to external sites. I only edited the article once & live some distance away - having looked at the previous discussions on the talk page & history of arbcom etc I think I'll just keep out of that one if you don't mind. You could always put the debate to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist & see what the experts there think.— Rod ^talk 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about Shaftesbury websites last year did not involve shaftesburydorset.com - this website was only linked for the first time in wikipedia in January 2008 after numerous people wondered why the most extensive town website (and in accordance with Wiki practice, the Offical town website as it is wholly owned by the Town Council) was not offered by a resource on Wikipedia when it is on other websites. After dialogue with editors through wikipedia-en-help, it was at THEIR recommendation that this link DID MEET Wiki standards and at THEIR recomendation that the explanation was put on the discusion page (indeed the wording was agreed through this dialogue on winkpedia-en-help). This explanation included the quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL "If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. It is therefore for independant editors to decide NOT another editor. No-one could understand why you are so protective of the shaftesburytown website being the only link? The link to shaftesburydorset has been back. Please stick to protocol and leave it to independant editors to decide as per wiki policy - you have no right to independently remove this link (no-one has removed yours). You keep referring to an "Edit War" - whatever that is - when you are the only one removing information. Ia am quite happy to refer the issue through the WP:DR process. People should have the CHOICE to view a range of resources, especially those kept up-to-date on a daily bases.Sgts (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Not at all! I put mine together (based on a various elements of other peoples user pages I liked) about 6 months ago, but in the last week or so have had users wanted to borrow it and/or leave positive feedback.

Feel free to copy it, infact, let me know if you'd like a hand with it, as it's quite complex. I look forwards to seeing how you put yours together. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there aren't any guidelines or even any real technical support for this kind of thing to be found anywhere. My page was possibly the most complex thing I've ever done, certainly on the net! However it was experience with the wiki-sytax that made it possible.

Perhaps you could copy and paste my page into User:Curuxz/Sandbox and then amend/play around with it in there until your happy? If you wanted help with specifics I'd be willing to give it. I know User:Peteb16 has a simillar userpage to mine which may not be quite as complex. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Shaftesbury page

Hi Curuxz. It can be frustrating when editors don't seem to be prepared to collaborate or to adjust gracefully when their desired outcome is not favored by consensus. But you're on the right track. Assuming other established editors don't end up supporting the link on the talk page keep taking the issue to the next venue. 3RR is the next step (assuming things continue) - but watch your own edits so that you aren't in violation too. Since there is support on the talk page for keeping the link out, you'll probably find other editors step in to revert when you don't (just not quite as promptly). If the editor comes back on other IPs then getting the page protected for a short while may hammer the message home that editing against consensus isn't tolerated. If that doesn't work asking for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would be the final step probably. Don't worry about it being strung out - we have all the time in the world and a week or too of back and forth with the link popping up now and again just doesn't matter in the scheme of things. Also, if you can, keep the dialog open and focused on improving the article. It may not be that fruitful in this case because it does seem the editor(s?) have a single purpose to get the link in rather than improve the article, but you never know, plus it's good practice! If you need any assistance, let me know. -- SiobhanHansa 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI reported for 3rr ([1]). -- SiobhanHansa 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/N-g-Efrat --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have time to mount at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser? I'm busy IRL right now, but may be able to do it tonight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the wording, I think my view is that Wessex and UoW can prefer what they wish; their remit does not extend to Wikipedia. If the "association" is in fact "degress validated by" then we should say that, because it better describes the facts of the situation; in other words, avoid euphamisms wherever possible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My garbled wording. There's a process in wikipedia called checkuser, by which an admin with checkuser permissions can look at submissions from a couple of users, and determine if they were made by the same IP address ... that's normally a clear indication of whether or not they are a sockpuppet. It's okay; I'll do it later then send you a diff so that you can see what I did. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIT: Still offering degrees

I was looking for citations for WIT this evening. I came across Statutory Instrument 1999 No.834, The Education (Listed Bodies) Order 1999, which lists WIT. And then I came across The Education (Listed Bodies) (England) Order 2007, which is the current list of institutions falling under sections 216(2) and 232(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988, which I presume sets out which institutions other than universities with roay charters can provide degree coureses. WIT is not on the list. Can you confirm that WIT is still offers degree courses? Do you know why WIT is no longer on the list? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thanks. I think it's important to try to reference as much as we can in the article, and so I will sometime add a pointer to that page. We might think about what other inline references we can come up with - the 2006 research report provides a wealth of information which can, I think, be used to reference other assertions made in the article. If you're not up to speed with referencing articles, don't fret too much, I'll chip away at it as time & interest dictates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend is back

I've reverted outr friend twice today, so any further reverts need to be done by you. As soon as he makes his fourth revert (i.e. if you revert him once today, and he adds his stuff again) he can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and will get a short ban. There's no good solution to the problem, since if he does get a lengthy ban, he can circumvent by starting new accounts. In the longer term an IP-based ban /might/ work, but again, not very well. So a bit of eternal vigilance is called for. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, indeed, breaking the 3RR :) Good stuff; let's let him revert once more in the next few minutes and then solicit a 24 hour ban for him. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, both of our friends were banned for a week last night after an admin kindly dealt with a 3RR alert. It's possible the sockpuppet will go on to get an indefinite ban if the checkuser process demonstrates beyond doubt that it is a sock, or if the suspected sockpuppet process determines high likelihood. The sock master wold also be likely to receive a short ban for running socks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIT

Please remove you last comment from the talk page of the Wessex Institute of Technology. I have not acted improperly in this. There was nothing wrong with my original addition of the VIDEA section, nor did I complain about its removal. I then correctly took it to the talk page for discussion. Please remove or refactor your comments, or provide diffs of when I have acted improperly. Please note that the wording of the notices above have not been written by me, and that your removal of the correctly placed copyvio warning twice was vandalism, although I am assuming that you didn't intend it which is why I placed the warnings, even though you did it twice, rather than report you to AIV. Verbal chat 13:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your questions and allegations on my talk page. Can you now please revert your accusations on the WIT talk page. Yours, Verbal chat

Thanks

All the best. Verbal chat 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My belated opinion

I know this is somewhat belated, but I wanted to provide you with some of my thoughts regarding the problems on the WIT article the other day. I'm really happy to see that the two of you are working well together, and don't want to jeopardise that, but want to give you my thoughts anyway, in the hope that you will become better equipped to handle similar situations in the future.

I think that you erred in two ways:

WP:AGF: You need to keep in mind that people will often make changes to an article without checking the discussion to see if it has been discussed before. While Verbal accepts that his edit lacked reliable sources, there's an essay that a lot of people around here follow, WP:BRD. It suggests that it's often best to just be bold, and make an edit (as he did). If someone disagrees with that edit (as you did), then they can just go ahead and revert it. From there, the only way forward is discussion. Verbal only put the changes in once, and accepted your revert. He did not war over it. He meant well, and you need to remember that most people are here to improve the encyclopaedia. Everyone makes mistakes, but your comments after the dispute indicated you felt Verbal was out to damage the encyclopaedia.
WP:COPYVIO: Verbal raised a legitimate copyright violation concern. It's not okay to remove a valid copyvio tag without discussion - and to edit war over it was particularly bad. I still have concerns about the copyright status of the WIT pages (the notice they now have does not indicate which content is covered by GFDL, and it's not clear what kind of attribution is required). I think the best way forward from here though, is to reword the content, citing the WIT pages (instead of incorporating their content).

Anyway, that's just my opinion, but I hope you'll take it on board for the future. -- Mark Chovain 06:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

195.188.40.144

Hey Curuxz, About 195.188.40.144 , I gave him/her a warning for being uncivil to you. Reliableforever (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving warnings.

Hey sorry to bother you again but when you give vandals warnings add this in the beginning of your warning . Just copy and paste it. Also you link to pages by using 2 brackets first this way[ then this way ]. Hope I helped. Reliable♪Forever (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ulcerative colitis

Hi!, I reverted your edits on Talk:Ulcerative colitis because I don't see the point of copying the article contempt on the article's talk page...--Seba5618 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help :). --Seba5618 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex Institute of Technology

I've spoken to N-g-Efrat and his new sockpuppet, and put them both on final warnings. If the behaviour continues, any of us can go to AN/I and ask for a ban. I'm only online say 3 days per week, so may not be able to step in when the next uncited addition is made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining

Thanks! I wasn't confident to do it myself, but I support your action. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Hello Curuxz. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Shaftesbury, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. As the owner of firmsites.co.uk you should not be promoting links to that site or websites that are hosted by it. This is a very clear conflict of interest. Bob Re-born (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Ariel view wit.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Aerial view of Wessex Institute of Technology.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aerial view of Wessex Institute of Technology.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Grad prog.jpg

The file File:Grad prog.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]