User talk:Roche-Kerr

Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 The current date and time is 11 November 2024 T 17:33 UTC.

P.S. I like messages :-P

US political party questions

Hello Nick! I responded to your questions about the Minnesota DFL Party on my talk page. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a response to your additional questions on my talk page. EdwinHJ | Talk 15:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Citizenship

Hi Nick I'm curious about your comment "As a previous dual national, I chose to retain British citizenship in favour of US citizenship. By doing so I've lost the right to be a US citizen and the ability to reside in the US without immigration status, but I could apply to be a US resident, if I wanted to be."

The US does not require this for dual nationals, nor does the UK. Did you formally sign away your US citizenship at the US Embassy? JAJ 17:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having been born in the US, I decided to give up citizenship based on the fact that I was required to file for US taxes and was told I could not serve in HM Forces (which is a violation of US citizenship, as I was not required to serve). Similarly, since I live in the UK and have no intention of residing in the US, I thought it was somewhat pointless retaining two citizenships. However, as I do not hold a US passport, and have served in a 'foreign armed forces', I do not qualify for US citizenship automatically, so no declaration at an embassy was required. Nick Kerr 17:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you were born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen and have been one since birth. It doesn't matter that you don't have a US passport; the mere fact of being born in the US (unless your parents were in the country as foreign diplomats) makes you a citizen. Also, whoever told you you could not keep your US citizenship and also serve in the British military was misinformed (at least according to the State Dept.'s interpretation since 1990). You are certainly free to give up your US citizenship if that is what you really want to do, but unless you have made your wishes explicitly known to officials at a US consulate or embassy, and unless you have been issued a formal certificate from US consular officials confirming your loss of US nationality, you are in fact still a US citizen as far as US law is concerned. Richwales 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is where US and international law tends to deviate. I could not care less what US law says, as I live outside US borders and do not see how a neo-imperialist attitude makes much sense. Citizenship requires, at least in the UK, some way of proving nationality, which I do not possess (for the US), whereas I can readily prove I'm a British Citizen. So archaic laws can do as they please, but I do not recognise the validity of US law in such matters. The sheer idea of a 'Certificate of Loss of Citizenship' is absolute nonsense. As for military service, the US may, once again, 'require' whatever it wishes, but the UK does not allow dual nationals to serve in certain occupations (such as the Submarine Service) and non-Commonwealth dual nationals may not serve in HM Forces (thus, a US citizen who is also an Australian Citizen may not serve in the British Army, while a dual New Zealand-Australian may). I am aware that the US views its law as paramount and all-binding, but I simply do not see what point there is playing games with an archaic system. 'Proving' that one does not wish to be a citizen is wasteful, it's rather self-evident by ones desire to hold another passport, and while I do not personally support dual nationality, I do not consider it necessary to go around pampering to the fools who run a government that is so 'proud' of itself. Nick Kerr 09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that each country in this world makes its own laws regarding who its citizens are, generally without regard to the citizenship laws or policies of any other country. This isn't just a US thing; other countries (including the UK) take the same sort of attitude. For example, if a citizen of the UK becomes a naturalized US citizen, he/she has to take an oath of allegiance to the US that includes a blanket renunciation of all prior allegiances; however, this oath has no legal force under British law, and as far as the UK is concerned, such a person is still a citizen of the UK, no matter what he/she (or the US government) may think.

Does your British passport indicate your birthplace? If so, then you're likely to run into snags if you ever travel to the US (even as a tourist), because a US birthplace will be interpreted by US immigration officials as evidence that you are a US citizen, and you'll be hassled mercilessly for not having a US passport (as is required under US law for any US citizen entering the US, irrespective of any other citizenships or passports one may have). In fact, an astute airline ticket agent who happens to notice that your British passport shows you were born in the US might even refuse to allow you to board a US-bound flight without either a US passport or some sort of hard evidence that you are not, in fact, a US citizen.

Exercising another citizenship, or holding another country's passport, is not necessarily considered a self-evident indication that one is rejecting other citizenships. Again, the US isn't the only country with such an attitude; the UK has no objection (in general) to dual UK/other citizenship and does not interpret foreign naturalisation, owning a non-UK passport, etc. as having any implications whatsoever regarding one's British citizenship. Richwales 16:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having travelled to the US on holiday numerous times, I've never had any trouble. As a British passport does not state country or province of birth (only town name) this isn't really an issue. As for UK law, no, the UK does not recognise a US renunciation oath, but the UK also does not 'require' that someone born within its borders travels on a British passport. Similarly, the UK does not attempt to tax someone on world-wide income nor does it assume one is a citizen without possession of some form of documentation proving it. All person born to British parents abroad are technically British citizens, yet the UK does not go around claiming that they must enter the country nor go around claiming they are citizens. Citizenship is a right, not a requirement, and if someone chooses to relinguish that right, it is not under US statute or British statute they do this, but through choice. The US can lesiglate as it pleases in this matter, but it's dreadfully boring. While the US may make whatever citizenship legislation it wishes, I fail to see why anyone who does not live in the US or want to should ever really care, especially as I'm not fond of the country as a holiday spot as well. Nick Kerr 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German mercenaries

Hi:) I dont think one can do a merge off ones bat so you'd have to write a German mercenaries page and then go through the procedure described here Jameswilson 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CVF "discussion"

Cheers! It was extraordinary, I love the way people like that make up their own reality and then present it as fact (e.g. France building 5 nuclear carriers and Britian building no carriers at all!) I love the last comment by Douglasnicol "I don't think I want to know what our EU propaganda minister has been smoking". Regards Mark83 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Coal Renewable energy

I usually only use Wikipedia rather than contribute, however I noted a couple of errors on you UK Coal contribution. I have corrected it a couple of times.

The UK ETS has been operating for 5 years. Methane is considered as an applicable green house gas within this scheme and UK Coal have mitigated considerable tonnages of CO2eq over this period using coal mine methane utilization and flaring. The UK ETS finishes shortly.

The new EU ETS does not include for methane within it unfortunately (phases 1&2), however it is likely that in the 2012 phase methane will be included. Only one UK mine is currently included in the EU ETS and UK Coal does not own it.

Coal Mine Methane qualifies for Climate Change Levy (CCL)Exemption, but does not qualify for Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs). The only country I am aware of in europe that gets their own equivalent of ROCs is Germany.

Butlen 16:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fine, as I'm not a specialist on the EU ETS. The main thing was the wording for a while, which is fine now, and I've just gone over UK Coal's website to check for any further details (which is covered in your changes). Sorry for any inconvenience =) Roche-Kerr 10:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Viper mark 7s.jpg

Hello Roche-Kerr, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Viper mark 7s.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Roche-Kerr. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:College of Law Logo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:College of Law Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ukcoal logo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ukcoal logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Logo brit.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo brit.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:3ilogo.gif

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:3ilogo.gif. 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, 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, 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}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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: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 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NCP Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NCP Logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PxMa 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Roche-Kerr! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 290 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Richard Tomkins - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Roche-Kerr. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Roche-Kerr. 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]

Proposed deletion of IPOD generation

The article IPOD generation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Obvious neologism, fails GNG

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]