User talk:Mrslippery

Vandalism

Hello. Are you sure I deleted large sections of your article? I was completely unaware of doing so & I remain a little puzzled at the statement. Regardless, what was wrong with the new photographs & information? Rosser 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosser. Perhaps you may have deleted by accident, or perhaps there may have been some software error. Too much was lost to do a cut and paste from an older version so I reverted the article. As far as I know I did not delete anything of yours deliberately, though something may have been lost in the reversion. If so, my apologies. Just put it back in. btw its not my article. I just have it on my watchlist. regards Mrslippery 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ossian's hall of Mirrors

I thought over your comment and I hope this compromise will suffice. Cheers . Rosser (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel charts

Per Wikipedia:Content forking#Accidental_duplicate_articles, we should never split one topic like that, between volvelle and another place, so I moved the page back. Please do not consider this a disregard for your edits, but they should be made on the main article, currently volvelle, not forked like that. If you would like to move the page to a new title, please see WP:MOVE and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Thank you. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Just letting you know, another editor has rearranged things slightly; there's now two articles: volvelle and slide chart. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is curious Anakin 101. Immediately after I reverted an edit of yours to the calculator article you went to an article [wheel chart] which I had just created and deleted it. That is either a strange coincidence, or a disgraceful example of retaliatory behaviour that has no place on Wikipedia.

Mrslippery (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, I came to let you know exactly what had happened so that you could find it and put it into the article. It's basically there now. I'm not a retaliatory sort of person and it wasn't my intention to come into conflict with you twice in a day. I'm sorry about that. If you must know, I clicked your contributions to see if you had replied to the discussion at Talk:Calculator again, and saw it there. Again, I'm not a retaliatory person. I'm sorry if it seemed to you like I was picking on you, and I wasn't. Please do not hold it against me. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to this comment

In retrospect Mrslippery you were right to be annoyed. Perhaps I did not act wisely in reverting first and asking later, but I panicked when I saw that lots of redirects were changing. Again I apologize if you thought I was intentionally interfering as some sort of attack against you. With regards to Talk:Calculator, I am actually glad this discussion has started – it's about time that poor old article got a bit of attention. • Anakin ^(talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Gieve / image copyright issue

I note that you're in a revert war on this article. It might be wise to start discussing it on talk:John Gieve. It's clear to me that neither of you are right. Your contributions stray off topic, but have a useful core. The deleter has not noticed that there is some valuable content in what you're adding. Crucially, this is a biography of a living person, not an opinion piece. You must be aware of WP:BLP rules. If you are not, please acquaint yourself. If you do not sort the dispute out soon, then admins will intervene on BLP grounds, and the article pared back to the bones.

In other news, your Image:Curveasy.jpg has bogus copyright information on it. You may indeed have taken the photo of the device, but you do not own the copyright in the print that you're photographing. At best, the image should have a fair use tag on it - similar to an album cover - but should certainly not say "own work". I'll give you some time to address this, but again caution that the image will be deleted if the licence issue is not sorted out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked at the history of the Geive article, it's fairly clear you have a point of view on the man. The only way you;re going to make your POV fly is to make sure it is meticulously referenced. Nothing less will do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon

"I note that you're in a revert war on this article. "No, I am not. I reverted two attempts to delete substantial parts of an article. That is not a revert war.

"It might be wise to start discussing it on talk:John Gieve." If you had looked at the discussion page you would have seen that was happening.

"It's clear to me that neither of you are right." You incorrectly assume that, a) I have a side; b) Only two people have contributed to the article. Please study the article history with more attention.

"You must be aware of WP:BLP rules. If you are not, please acquaint yourself." If you had looked at the discussion page you would have seen that I made reference to the BLP page.

"Actually, having looked at the history of the Geive article, it's fairly clear you have a point of view on the man." Actually, no its not. It is good practice to make unsubstantiated accusations.

"your Image:Curveasy.jpg has bogus copyright information on it. You may indeed have taken the photo of the device, but you do not own the copyright in the print that you're photographing." It is not a photograph of a print.

"I'll give you some time to address this, but again caution that the image will be deleted if the licence issue is not sorted out."

How kind. I think your interpretation of copyright law is wrong but I have no time for pig wrestling. Feel free to delete.

Mrslippery (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Goldcorp

Hello Mrslippery, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Goldcorp, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Kennisis. This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Kennisis. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Kennisis (talk · contribs) 01:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong here since I have never created a Goldcorp page.

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Calculator do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot!

commercial links

Please explain the addition of the following links. They are not official sites about the Dolomites. They are not neutral (often they are commercial agencies which get paid by subscribers for linking to hotels or vacation rentals). Also links to blogs (which are not maintained by a recognized authority) should be avoided. Please read WP:LINKSTOAVOID.--Sajoch (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Nelsonmonument01.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nelsonmonument01.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. Kelly ^hi! 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mrslippery. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]