User talk:Pregabalin Nights
Nicholas Bridgestock - possible hoax?
[edit]Hi, do you know anything about Nicholas Bridgestock, or have access to any of the sources referenced in the article about him? If so, you might be able to help with the query I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism#Denis Healey, Ralph Miliband, Michael Crick, and... Nicholas Bridgestock? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Awarded for helping to bring to an end Nicholas Bridgestock's Machiavellian but imaginary stranglehold over the 1970s. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks!--John Allen (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
nationality/citizenship
[edit]Why the sudden series of edits on this? Has there been a chance in policy here or is it your initiative? Generally the nationality links all make it clear that citizenship is British in the case of Scottish/Welsh etc and its complicated in the case of Irish to say the least. Why clutter up the information box with this? --Snowded TALK 21:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have raised the issue on a Talk page, but it didn't seem so controversial, so I'm afraid this is the one edit GoodDay can't be blamed for! I had to smile when I saw your user page. Being an opponent of the British union, you might applaud an attempt in those edits to distinguish between British citizenship and the various nationalities. In the following articles nationality was erroneously listed as British: Tony Benn, Winston Churchill, Peter Shore, A. J. P. Taylor, Harold Wilson. So I moved British to citizenship and added English to their nationality. The case of Lloyd George was different as he was already listed as Welsh in nationality, so in the interests of standardisation, an aim of the Infoboxes Wikiproject, I added his citizenship as British.
- I don't agree that the nationality/citizenship issue is clear already. Lloyd George after all was born not in Wales but in Manchester. In Argentina there is a relatively large Welsh speaking population. Had Lloyd George been born there, and migrated to Wales, he would be entitled to be identified as Welsh, but he would not automatically have British citizenship. That is an interesting point vis-a-vis the Irish. It gets even more complicated when we bring in the Empire/Commonwealth. For example, describing Gandhi as British, though maybe technically accurate would probably not stay up very long! The issue of self-identification should come in here, but this does not apply to Lloyd George. As for clutter, I feel the page needs a least one reference and link to the complicated issue of British citizenship, and the infobox is probably the best place.--John Allen (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The addition of citizenship is not normal as far as I can see - is this something that has been agreed on a style guide or is it just your view? I should say that I am not opposed to the idea per se, but these things are not best resolved on individual pages --Snowded TALK 03:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I shall leave this line of editing alone for the foreseeable future. It's just my view at the moment, I'm too busy finding inline citations for A. J. P. Taylor to push the idea any further.--John Allen (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Sarkozy faces a rough ride.JPG
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Sarkozy faces a rough ride.JPG, which you've sourced to Scan of copyrighted magazine page. The person, who scanned it, has no right to add permission to use it.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 05:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Net breaking BBC bias.JPG
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Net breaking BBC bias.JPG, which you've sourced to Scan of copyrighted magazine page. The person, who scanned it, has no right to add permission to use it.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 05:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
French Status on NATO
[edit]Hi there, I was wondering if you were able to add references to the section on the "French status" that you added to the article on NATO? I marked it with an unreferenced template, since pretty much every sentence in there will need a source attached to it. Like it says on the template, the section might be removed if it doesn't have sources. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the message. I have all the sources to add, but it will probably take a few weeks before I get around to doing this.--John Allen (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is my original edit on 4 April 2015:
=== French status === From the mid-1960's to the mid-1990's France pursued a military strategy of independence from NATO, i.e. outside the integrated military command, a policy dubbed "Gaullo-Mitterrandism". After François Mitterrand left office in 1995, new President Jacques Chirac began a decade and a half of rapprochement with NATO by joining the Military Committee and attempting to negiotiate a return to the integrated military command, which failed after the French demand for parity with the United States went unmet. The possibility of a further attempt foundered after Chirac was forced by an election into cohabitation with a Socialist-led cabinet between 1997-2002, then poor Franco-American relations after the French UN veto threat over Iraq in 2003 made transatlantic negotiations impossible. His successor Nicolas Sarkozy, with more modest demands, negiotiated the return of France to the integrated military command and the Defence Planning Commitee in 2009, the later being disbanded the following year. Despite the rapprochement of recent decades, France intends to remain the only NATO member outside the Nuclear Planning Group and, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, will not commit its nuclear-armed submarines to the alliance.
From the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, France pursued a military strategy of independence from NATO under a policy dubbed "Gaullo-Mitterrandism".[citation needed] Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated the return of France to the integrated military command and the Defence Planning Committee in 2009, the later being disbanded the following year. France remains the only NATO member outside the Nuclear Planning Group and unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, will not commit its nuclear-armed submarines to the alliance.[1][2]
- Patrick, o?8 claimed in the revision summary that "the unsourced "French status" section...is mostly duplicate information from the History section." This is untrue, were my edits "duplicate" rather than original material they would be as inaccurate as the information he refers to in the History section. This information comes from an edit on 13 July 2009 by Shattered Wikiglass, a user now banned as a socket puppet of Mrg3105, who was originally banned for disruptive editing. His sourced edit incorrectly asserts "The Military Committee excluded France, due to that country's 1966 decision to remove itself from NATO's integrated military structure, until 1995. Until France rejoined NATO, it was not represented on the Defence Planning Committee...". Clearly nobody has ever checked the source, but worse is that this rubbish is now duplicated on at least half a dozen pages. Now, in mitigation, I have no doubt that while Shattered Wikiglass is malicious, Patrick, o?8 is merely
a halfwitconfused. But the result is still the same, a lousy encylopedia.--John Allen (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Patrick, o?8 claimed in the revision summary that "the unsourced "French status" section...is mostly duplicate information from the History section." This is untrue, were my edits "duplicate" rather than original material they would be as inaccurate as the information he refers to in the History section. This information comes from an edit on 13 July 2009 by Shattered Wikiglass, a user now banned as a socket puppet of Mrg3105, who was originally banned for disruptive editing. His sourced edit incorrectly asserts "The Military Committee excluded France, due to that country's 1966 decision to remove itself from NATO's integrated military structure, until 1995. Until France rejoined NATO, it was not represented on the Defence Planning Committee...". Clearly nobody has ever checked the source, but worse is that this rubbish is now duplicated on at least half a dozen pages. Now, in mitigation, I have no doubt that while Shattered Wikiglass is malicious, Patrick, o?8 is merely
Disambiguation link notification for April 16
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Sweeney (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radio 4. 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) 09:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Shore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Streak. 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) 09:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of David Lindsay (writer)
[edit]
A tag has been placed on David Lindsay (writer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Philip Cross (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Pregabalin Nights. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Pregabalin Nights. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
New WikiProject Socialism membership system
[edit]Hello! I'm in the process of introducing a new membership system to WikiProject Socialism (designed as part of WikiProject X and adopted by a few other projects). The new system works by filling a form which creates a WikiProject Card. I'm manually creating WikiProject cards for current members. You can find and edit yours here. Any change to your WikiProject card will be automaticalle updated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Members. If you have any doubt, please, feel free to contact me by replying here using the {{re}} template. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)