User talk:ProhibitOnions/Archive6

ProhibitOnions Talk archives
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · X Current talk page

IBM Personal Computer

Would you please have a look at the rather abrupt move of this article to IBM Personal Computer (original) by someone called User:PlayStation69? I don't agree with this renaming of the article; the original title was perfectly clear and the suffix "original" is un-needed. --Wtshymanski 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that was a silly move. It's now back where it was. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:NewWembleyBuild.jpg

Hey, I was gonna transfer this over to commons but the no rights reserved has been deprecated there. I was wondering if you could switch it to PD-self or choose another free license like the GFDL, cc-by or cc-by-sa. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Christian High School

I thought I would let you know that this article is up for deletion again and you can vote on it at the following page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Christian High School (2nd nomination)

--MJHankel 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like it's been kept. I honestly don't remember what I voted last time, though I think it was keep... Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonderbra

Couple of things. The article made FA status - thanks for your help! I also had a question about this sentence of the lead that I think you developed "In 1991, following an advertising campaign, the push-up Wonderbra became a sensation in the U.K.,..." Do you have some support this attribution to "an advertising campaign" for the U.K. resurgence? The articles I've read suggested it was driven by shifts in fashion (including one story of French haute couture models who took a liking to the bra style) and some media coverage. Still, I wont claim I did exhaustive research on the European end of the business history so I figured I'd ask you. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers. Mattnad 01:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, I'll take a look. Congrats on the FA! ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle Central Station

OK, is it like a second hand opinion what you need? I'll go over and have a look - Cheers! Tellyaddict 11:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It just seems that a misunderstood "convention" is taking precedence over common sense. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your post at Talk:Newcastle upon Tyne and the above, please check out WP:CANVASS. For the record, I was born and have lived in Newcastle my whole life. This doesn't preclude me from having a different point of view to yourself, nor does it mean that my view, or those of "non-Tynesiders" (as you put it) is incorrect. It is simply a different point of view to yours. Where a particular editor lives shouldn't prejudice the value of their opinion, whether you think it is "misunderstood" or not.   johnwalton   (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the guidelines regarding canvassing, which is why I haven't broken them. As per my comment, the user voicing the strongest opinions on this matter, is evidently unfamiliar with Newcastle, and also with the station and its significant role in Tyneside life. There's nothing wrong with asking for a second opinion. Not all points of view are, or can be, "correct." And you are incorrect in asserting that the station's "official name" is just "Newcastle". That is, obviously, the name that appears on national timetables and station boards, as there is only one main station in the city; greater precision is not necessary (I have trimmed mentions of it on Wikipedia templates to match this). However, the full official name of the station, as anyone from the North East should know, is "Newcastle Central Station". I think I have documented this well enough, and that it is now evident that Chriscf is trolling (for example, after I pointed out that there is only a proposed guideline, he immediately removed the {{proposal}} tag from it -- not nice. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi ProhibitOnions/Archive6, I've commented on the whole naming conventions at ANI about this whole naming conventions, I personally agree with you and users who are moving articles like Haymarket Metro Station to Newcastle Haymarket and Newcastle Central Station to Newcastle Station is just silly and they were fine before that lol. Anyway you may wish to read my comment and reply... Cheers! Tellyaddict 19:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tellyaddict, and thanks for your contributions. BTW, you made a good point on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames regarding the user named Farty-whatever it was. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:JFK_Entry_in_Berlin_Golden_Book.png

Thanks for uploading Image:JFK_Entry_in_Berlin_Golden_Book.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the bots are at it again. I think these are in Commons anyway. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:JFK_Ich_bin_ein_Berliner_-_civis_Romanus_sum_2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:JFK_Ich_bin_ein_Berliner_-_civis_Romanus_sum_2.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Another one! ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:JFK_Ich_bin_ein_Berliner_-_civis_Romanus_sum.png

Thanks for uploading Image:JFK_Ich_bin_ein_Berliner_-_civis_Romanus_sum.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And another! ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear metro nameboards

Please stop edit-warring over the issue of nameboards for the Tyne and Wear Metro station articles (e.g. Haymarket Metro station). Some kind of compromise needs to be reached, and persistent tit-for-tat reversions will not achieve this. I have left this message for all the editors involved.

As a compromise, I suggest having the nameboards somewhere else in the article but not as the station name in the infobox. Personally, I think this is the fairest solution. Please give it consideration. --RFBailey 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Tram. Please be careful to discuss controversial changes rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, please email me or place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply

What Yamla saw is the same thing that I did, that all of your edits removed "light-rail vehicle" from a certain paragraph. This was evidently a contentious edit. Generally, if you find yourself reverting (or getting reverted) even once, it's best to stop and talk right then rather than keep on going-obviously, someone disagrees with you. It's also best during the conversation to stop editing until things are agreed on, it's tough to hit a moving target. We've also got dispute resolution if things absolutely can't be worked out. As to "incorrect edit", that's pretty mild incivility. Civility doesn't mean "don't speak your mind", it means "comment on edits and content, not people". I've seen some pretty nasty edit summaries, and as they go, that one's pretty tame. Remember though, a revert need not go back to an exact copy of a previous version. Repeatedly making a contentious edit, even as part of a larger edit, is reverting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed "light rail" from one sentence, and expanded it and put it in another sentence in an attempt to find a well-meaning compromise. Each time the phrasing was different, following on from the talk-page discussion, where I did hold a long conversation with him, see Talk:Tram. Despite his disingenuous 3RR report, these were not reversions but attempts, on my part, to find a compromise - all of which the other user simply reverted. As I mentioned, the first edit he listed was not even a revert. If you insist on blocking me - my first block ever - you should block him as well. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. Even with the most legalistic counting of reverts, I couldn't find more than three. Your last wholesale revert was not particularly nice, but was not so much related to the "light rail" question. Another "revert" was followed up by a compromise wording. I have seen edit wars, but this was not one. Kusma (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kusma. I think, bearing in mind the history of the article, that the "wholesale" revert was justified, if heavy-handed, because it undid a hidden deletion of some text that had taken months to agree to, while adding some New York boosterism that would just stir the pot (where was the world's first Straßenbahn? Hmm?). Even so, I though I was having a fairly friendly chat with a fellow transit enthusiast, working toward a compromise, but he then evidently turned around and presented these compromises as thoughtless "whole-hog reversions". I think I might avoid these topics for a while. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please look more carefully at exactly what you are reverting. The article already said that New York was the first; I simply added details and made a correction (there is no "Bowery Street"). I don't see what Berlin Straßenbahn has to do with anything; that opened in 1847. As for the other two sections you restored, one of them is covered by tram (disambiguation) (again, the article is about a concept, not a term), and the other is irrelevant "fancruft" about yet another meaning in video games. --NE2 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)