User talk:Trident13/archive2008

Replaceable fair use Image:Royal_Worcester_Painted_Fruit.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Royal_Worcester_Painted_Fruit.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Don't worry, I know I'm controversial. But I do fully understand the desire to have less controversial members on ArbCom. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arterton/ Atwell

Thanks for doing that - sorry you had to clean up after me. Could I beg your advice for a couple of things, seeing as you're more expert at this than me? Where can i read about avoiding "structuring edit failures" (tried searching wikipedia and googling but didn't turn anything up)? Where did i remove refs? and is it really recommended to put birthplaces in brackets (i thought not after i read this and having lots of edits reverted when i tried putting people's birthplaces in brackets myself. Also, i don't think your edit on Hayley Atwell went through successfully unless I'm reading [the history] wrong. Amo (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really appreciate if you could take the time to reply, cos there's still work I'd like to do on those articles and I don't want to go making the same mistakes. If i don't hear from you, I'm going to go ahead with edits to the best of my ability. Amo (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Gemma Arterton

Do not call my edits vandalism. Though The Sun's original report has been verified by Empire, I'd advise you to read WP:RS. Removing a tabloid rumour is not vandalism. Alientraveller (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism - you state WP:RS, but I don't see it pick out The Sun specifically as an unreliable source - particularly not when the reference is backed up by a statement from Universal. Your current POV is not helpful. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Brian Carbury, Eric Lock

Hi. I've nominated Brian Carbury, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on December 30, where you can improve it if you see fit. Another article you created, Eric Lock, has also been nominated. Cheers. – Liveste (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 4 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corradino D'Ascanio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 5 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eric Lock, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Royalbroil 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture sizing policy

Hi Adrian, I hope this finds you well! I just noticed you resized a picture on Cleopatra's Needle, an article on which I keep a watch on, removing the px sizing with an edit summary saying there is a Wikipedia policy on this. On checking WP:PIC I note there is no reference to such a policy - in fact there is a whole section on resizing images, using the px setting. Can you direct me to where such a policy is noted? Thank You - Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I regret not using a clearer edit message when removing px values. My message used to be "Thumbnail sizes removed to comply with WP:MOS#Images - allows users to set their own image size via User Preferences". But it got deleted off a file where I keep such messages so I‘ve just been typing “Px values removed as per WP policy“ which is not so clear. So I’ll use the first message in future. As someone who works mainly on pictures I can assure you that my action on removing px values is correct. The idea is that for a person like me who has a 1600 pixel wide monitor, the 200 or 250 px values, or even 150px, typed into the pic code produces pics which are far too small on my screen. So in MY prefs I have set the maximum px value available (which is 300) and that produces the best thumbnail look for me. A person with a smaller screen might want 200 px and so on.

The page that you mention is a Tutorial and not a Policy statement and isn’t altered very often. So it's not stating policy.

I hope all is clear, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used the tutorial page is that, much as though its not policy, its the information we point new editors at, and that inexperienced editors use as the first port of call when in doubt editing. Hence, if the tutorial says "hey, here's how to adjust your picture" and policy says "remove px settings" then you will forever have a job removing px settings to comply with policy! If tutorial and written instruction doesn't align with policy, its kinda - daft. How do you suggest this break between policy versus information is resolved? Rgds, - Ian (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian! Happily I don't think px removals are causing any problem because I've removed the values from several hundred articles in the last few months and yours is the first comment on what my "authority" is. So I'm not being flooded with complaints on the removals. (Of course my Edit Message used to give the Manual of Style link that I mention above, so that may have satisfied other editors). Please don't think I'm the only person doing the removals, I frequently find articles with no px values so WP is definitely changing over.

Perhaps the tutorial should point to the policy document WP:MOS#Images as the authority and state that adding of px values can still be needed in the special cases that Policy describes, hence the need to detail how to add px values (even though they are disappearing!!) Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian - thanks! My interest is more focused with my activites here in mind than the pro's/con's of the specific article. Mainly I create articles and point newbie's in the right (???) direction. Pointing them in direction of a tutorial which is in disagreement with policy is - as I said, daft! Newbie's generally come here because they find an article/lack of, or a section of interest in which they start editing/adding to. Many have photo's which they innocently add, and they get quite sensitive about others editing anything on stuff they have added. If the tutorial is saying one thing at present, and policy says another - and they end up in conflict with another because of whet they have read says one thing - then we lose another contributor. As I said, I think we should find a way of aligning all elements so that digging down deeper (ie - from tutorial to policy) just adds to the detail, and doesn't conflict: which the tutorial does with the policy to which you refer. Best Regards, - Ian (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All understood. As a very experienced editor (I started in January 2003) I hadn't thought about the problems that Newbies have in knowing what the pic code should look like! However, I'm going to sign out on this subject now because a) thinking makes my head hurt :) and b) I've got a lot of new pics to add of so I'm going to start out on that now. Nice to have "chatted". Cheers - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of info in Brian Carbury

I've been adding some additional referencing to Brian Carbury, but I noticed looking at the external links that much of the content appeared identical to the two links given there, so I'm a little concerned about the copyright status of this text. The NZFPM site in particular has clear copyright notices on it. David Underdown (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message - I hope this finds you well! I can see your point, and although it was a good timeline structural source in my writing of the article, I felt that I hadn't in the way in which I had written, structured or found additional information breached their copyright. But I think the current version, in part thanks to your own efforts, couldn't be construed as a copyright violation. Happy to discuss further if you think necessary. Best Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still several paragraphs which are identical in wording, yes things have been linked and cited to other sources, but it would have been better to paraphrase the wording used in the orignals. David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NRLM

Hi, just wondered if you could tell me what the situation is with your page on this museum, which I just came across? It seems a perfectly decent article and it seems a pity that the material has not been placed on the relevant page National Roman Legionary Museum, which is simply a stub. Is it a good idea to be placing your user page extension in all those categories as well? Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - I hope this finds you well! From my point of view, still "work in progress" - I was planning to slowly complete the Welsh museums set refered to on the navigation tab. I am happy to publish it now if you think its good enough. Best Regards, - Trident13 (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go ahead: it's miles better than the couple of sentences at National Roman Legionary Museum at present! You can always add to it as you go along. Good work! Best regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any help appreciated thanks

Any help appreciated thanks, Dave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownsdownunder (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problems! I have given you a starting user page. From here, you can access a personal stubs page on which you can create articles - whatever you want, how ever you want, editing them as much as you want to. The advantage of personal stubs is that you can experiment, and create as you wish something which is just like a live article - while live pages in the project, as you have found out, will come under much more scrutiny. Hence creating a personal stub allows you time and creativity - once you are happy with the creation, you can publish it in a better condition and more fully than if you were creating a "live" article. Why not now go you your own personal projects page, and then access the stubs? You will find five stub articles, one of which I have added a single line to, the other four are all dead stubs until you add something. Good Luck - Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the pages I have already made? These are the ones I am interested in making 'Wikipedia friendly' I wont be making any more. Dave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownsdownunder (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - pick one! Either we can edit it "live" or transfer it temporarily to a stub and "play" there. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Philp

Maybe we could start with this one? I'll let you work your magic on it. Regards Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownsdownunder (talk • contribs) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, the page Lyn Philp is perfect. When your ready Suzie has been tagged for some work. Thanks Dave Clownsdownunder (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave - not sure its right yet. Its quite lacking in sources (could't find much on the web - is there a good book?), and I'd like a link to that Jimmy Carruthers story - when was it due? Sources are key to putting together a great article - hence why I construct most of mine on stubs first, as much as though someone may make a great article, if you can't find enough web sources you know its a long job with lots of reading! Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His boxing career is a bit hard to put together, however I will be talking to Billy Graham the boxer and will try and find out some more info, as well as when the Carruthers fight was supposed to take place. Will get back as soon as I can with any more info for you, once again thanks for helping si far it's great! Dave Clownsdownunder (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave - well I thinks that's about as much "polish" as I can put on that article until you have some more information. I'd suggest as well as chatting to Billy Graham, you find a book or two that mention Philp. I'd like to know: why did he come back to the ring after a two year break in 1953; what did he do after the ring? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes will do, I'll try and find out as much as I can for you, as far as I am concerned what you have done is just great. Thanks. Clownsdownunder (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ty_Nant_logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ty_Nant_logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Rettetast (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I have updated and enlarged the free use rationale, but the image still shows a tag suggesting it has no free use rationale - can you please advise? Thank you! Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Van Kampen

Regarding your edits to the Robrt Van Kampen biography, you have incorrect information. We have revised it once again to correct. You were using a combination of information from Jr. and Sr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrannel (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your message! Always gald to get good input on an article, particularly for someone who had led such an interesting life. Having seen the problems of intertwining of the history of father/son which you pointed out, I have adjusted the flow back to a more standard wiki format. I have also added the significant New York Times obituary. I hope this meets with your agreement, although if you have any further questions please advise - happy to assist. With Best Regards, - Trident13 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have the information wrong. We work directly for the family and updated the information per their request. The funds as you have amended again are not in Sola Scriptura. If you are not agreeable with the changes we have made, I suggest you remove the page altogether. We do not wish to have the fact that he is married to Judy and have three children included, for security purposes. Please revert the page back to what we had updated it to, or remove it. Thank you.

Sorry, I just read your previous reply. We do wish to have it as we amended. He was, indeed, a very interesting man and lived an amazing life. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrannel (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good - glad that is all sorted out then. If it means the article is more acceptable to the family, and we retain an article on a significant person, I have made adjustments re his family members details which desensitises the information without degradating the content significantly. If you notice any more issues, then let me know and happy to assist. Best Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McKellar

What discussion there is on the talkpage points out that the Runnymede Memorial is for RAF personnel with no known grave, rather than being a BoB memorial specifically. McKellar's grave is known, so of course he wouldn't be listed there. David Underdown (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest you add that to the Archie McKellar page - other wise, what's the point of your edit summary? Less experienced editors just won't get it, and over a third of the edits here are from Anon's. You might know what you mean, and the rest of us may be able to figure it out - but think about the Anon's. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See talk:Archie McKellar, user:Mabzilla wrote, "He is not commemorated at Runnymede because the memorial there is for RAF personnel whose graves are unknown," and if you actually look at the sequence of events on Archie McKellar, Mabzilla removed mention of Runymede, I added it straight back, and then saw what Mabzilla had written on talk and reverted myself. David Underdown (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm sorry if in my inexperience of editing I've caused friction between yourself and user:David Underdown. He obviously meant his reference to the “talk” page to mean the Archie McKellar page and not the Runnymede one. I've amended my contribution to talk:Archie McKellar to include a link to the Air Forces Memorial page in the light of your remarks about helping the less experienced. Regards, and thanks for your welcome on my talk page.--Mabzilla (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry - no friction, just a question of clarity. He's a good editor and contributor, and this "remote" format of communication creates those "opportunities." As it says in the rules here, Assume Good Faith - lots of squabbles and disputes here are often down to a misunderstanding in communication because of the narrow tendencies of this format. Look after yourself! Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Angola (and elsewhere)

Thank you for your well-reasoned comment about the "Corruption in ..." series. I agree that these articles will be nothing but a potential POV maintenance headache down the road. This has already proved to be much more inflammatory than I ever imagined. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

I would like to thank you for your recent support against the deletion of my article on Leo J. Meyer. Obviously we were not successful. I must say that I agree that it was just the type of article that an E-encyclopedia should have and I am sorry to now feel that the Wikipedia project is just another form of IMDB. As for Leo's notability; well, for a time he was unofficially considered the oldest man to have attempted and completed an Army jump school and, he is the grand uncle of the actor Thomas Jane ;) It is sad that there are people who do not understand the significance of the Combat Infantryman Badge awarded prior to the invasion of Iraq. To the infantryman and many other soldier specialties, it has been regarded second only to the Medal of Honor. One of my fathers old Army associates read the article and said to me that "he [dad] was truly one of a kind". Thanks again - Jeff Meyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyerj (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff - thanks for your message! I was looking at this this morning, and I have decided to appeal the deletion this evening UK time. That's based on the fact that the extension for comments on the debate was only opened up for another 4.5hours; and that I think this case brings up some interesting questions around policy - as I said in the debate, if 16 references/20 promotions and 40 medals is not "notable," then what is? I'll drop you another message when I have started the debate. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the policy at WP:DRV, I have asked the closing administrator to review his closure of the debate - see User talk:Secret. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

Young men, I am sending this to both Trident13 and Edison.

I do thank both of you for your efforts. There are some people in this world, which once having made up their mind will never deviate. The adamant negative exchange sounded like a dressing down. And I hope that was not the case.

I find it strange that only notability rules apply to the article on my father’s friend and former commander, Frederick C Weyand. That was my inspiration and choice for emulation; although I did review the articles on several other NOTABLE officers (one being my former boss, Robert L. Howard). Going back to that Weyand article, I see only two links to source information external to Wikipedia and one of those is just a link to the US Army Center for Military History’s skimpy professional bio, but not sited properly. The other seems to substantiate that an interview was conducted, and the events around it. The In my article, I was trying to reinforce information that I had stated. I suppose I should have listed the campaigns which Leo Meyer was engaged in to show actual combat. But I was trying again to emulate Weyand’s write up. I was not going to post an image of his award documents as they include his service number or Social Security Number. Changes to the article after you folks cashed it gave more info regarding the books to include Library of Congress numbers. I was unable to acquire ISBN information.

I am ready to put this chapter behind me and be content to find that hundreds of Wiki administrators contribute to articles from such a wide variety of backgrounds and expertise; and to read interesting articles about computer games such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor:_Airborne (I am a gamer and have ordered this one). I have been in the Web mastering business since 1997 and have received a few Army civilian and military awards for my Web efforts. Today I am relegated to the Army Web policy side and develop no more. And yes I could easily build a Web page, but I thought Wikipedia was the best sort of place for an informative article and do not want to build a shrine. The Wiki article was most interesting to build, and I learned a lot. I particularly enjoyed researching my father’s history and caution anyone to pick the brain of the parents before it is too late, as it was for me.

My hat is off to the creator of Wikipedia. The originators of Wikipedia have created a wonderful tool for collecting and sharing the information of the ages available to all; truly an encyclopedic event in itself. It is a shame that the WP 5P seem to be open to a variety of interpretations. I have removed the information I posted concerning the ‘list’ of 3 time recipients of the CIB because of the removal of the image of the award. That too is a shame, that that information will not be shared except at the US Army National Infantry Museum. And by the way, two of the Army museums have expressed a desire for his memorabilia and uniforms.

If you are predisposed to explore beyond the Wiki world, I invite you to view the entries at the National WWII Memorial registry and the Soldiers Registry at the US Army National Museum that I have posted for both Leo J Meyer of NY (at both locations) and Jeffrey R. Meyer of MA at the museum.

I wish you both well and luck in your administrative endeavors. As I have no reason now, I shall not be signing into Wikipedia in the future. I am getting ready to retire from civil service and will be content to focus on the care of our horses, if you wish to communicate with me, please use my jeff.meyer2@us.army.mil address.

If you should ever run across a US Army biographer, asking him for an opinion.

Your most humbled public servant Jeffrey Meyer wanabe historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyerj (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Butler-Henderson

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vicki Butler-Henderson. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you watched the program Fifth Gear recently? What's the big rock on the third finger of her left hand then? Its all over the blogs, that's the best reference I could get at present. An unref tag would have been friendlier - a poor approach, and too aggressive. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To aid communication I've kept the conversation relating to the warning here. Whether I've seen the ring on her finger is irrelevant. Blogs do not comply with fundamental policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. A ring on the ring finger of the left hand is not necessarily evidence of an engagement and does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Her marital status is an important piece of information as far as an encyclopedia is concerned and consequently, good efforts should be made to "get it right". In the article you stated -

"Butler-Henderson is engaged to former Fifth Gear producer and current Top Gear studio director, Phil Churchward."

citing and misrepresenting the following Sunday Times article which states -

"The Top Gear crew consists of one director, Phil Churchward (romantically linked to Vicki Butler-Henderson, presenter of Fifth Gear, a rival show on Five);"

I read the article, double checked the other articles and ran a google search, the only relevant results being some comments on a forum. Consequently, I changed the text to accurately reflect the article -

"Butler-Henderson is romantically linked to former Fifth Gear producer and current Top Gear studio director, Phil Churchward."

and spelt out the reason in the edit summary -

"Statement not backed by ref."

You reverted my edit, stating in the edit summary "Personal life - engaged"

I was surprised by this tendentiousness and your failure to abide by the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I had a look at your posting history, to see if it could be excused by your being an inexperienced user, and found to the contrary, that you appeared to have a good grasp of other WP guidelines and policies during the thousands of edits you have made since April 2006.

I reverted your revert, again spelling the reason out in the edit summary - "Statement not supported by ref.". I issued the above warning as a necessary pre-requisite for an admin block, should you again revert my change, and because you were an experienced editor adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons in contravention of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which states -

"We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

"Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked."

You state "An unref tag would have been friendlier". This would not comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in which Jimmy Wales states -

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

You state "a poor approach, and too aggressive.". I note at the top of the talk page, citing the reasons for taking a wikibreak, you mention "those who don't believe in the benefits of debate over aggresive editting". I'm exasperated and feeling that I have wasted enough of my time responding to this. Your willingness to revert the work of others who are following WP policy, your approach, your accusations and your pointing the finger at others have made me angry enough to refer this to the administrators noticeboard in the hope that they can discover the reason for your approach. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Trident13, John is correct in that we need a source that actually says that the relationship is an engagement rather than just being "romantically linked". If she announced it during a broadcast of some sort, then we could probably cite an article about that announcement. Unfortunately, the appearance of a ring on a particular finger isn't enough to source a claim of engagement - but, if we can find another source that does, we can re-add the material. Please don't re-add "engaged" to the article until we have that other source. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are a few blogs that speculate on the subject - but we can't really use blogs. If they cite a news article, we could use the news article they reference. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

paisans.org ban paisans.org listing under enthusiast sites in Vespa and Lambretta section. What exactly did I do wrong? You didn't even give me a hint.

--Socalrico (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lawrence Brough Cranwell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lawrence Brough Cranwell.jpg. 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 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tasmania Tigers.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tasmania Tigers.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. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Roberts

I deleted a load of weird stuff from this article. You may want to take a look. Terrence Wrist (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Lilleshall_SSC_ariel_001.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Lilleshall_SSC_ariel_001.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo J. Meyer

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [1]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [2] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [3]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Resume

Thanks for improving it. I have been massively busy lately in real life so my side projects are a little behind. My only objection to the new version is also calling it a "Cinume". Cinume appears still to be a non notable brand of video resume service. I would put a brief mention of it in there but not let it share top billing. spryde | talk 11:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Property

I noticed that this article which you created was largely copied from UKGameshows.com. I have removed the copyvio, so you might want to rewrite the article in original prose. -Q4 (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Van Kampen

Hi, again,

Can you please correct the information that states the assets are controlled through "Sola Scriptura." Insert the sentence below...

"The family now controls his former assets, worth approximately $200 million."

I missed that one before. Sorry. Thanks for helping to get this corrected.

jas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.23.221 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested deletion

The user subpage that you requested to be deleted, User:Trident13/Goodway, has been deleted. -- Natalya 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Welsh Labour and Category:Welsh Labour Party politicians

Category:Welsh Labour and Category:Welsh Labour Party politicians, which you created, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust trains

1. The holocaust trains was posted by me, in the first place, as is based on my original article "The trains of the Holocaust", 1996. There was no vandalism ther, as stated. Please remove this statement.

all the edited materias was correct.

for more info go to : www.engpublishing.com

2. Moinest: i was born in this city.

for the rest, thanks. hedi

If you look back through the articles history, I was the person who took it from your original research piece which was being debated for deletion, to something which stayed and has now passed on as a reference piece on the Wiki Holocaust project. I think your article can and probably should be included as an external link, but there was much debate about its inclusion a while back - hence my excluding it again when I last looked at the article. I think it would be worth while putting the logic for its inclusion on the articles talk page - this is a multi-person co-operative project, so who cares who started an article; stick to the line that it add's to the Wiki article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Evans (presenter)

You did a great job on fixing up this article - very well done! :-) br, --DaveG12345 (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Danielle Lloyd - [4]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did adding a reference and cleaning something from fan cruft up rate as vandalism? Please, go chase the real vandals, and do some good here. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous. You omitted to mention that you added the unreferenced pov statement - "Having someone what limited the publicity damage from CBB5, Lloyd has continued her non-modelling career as a professional "celebrity for hire."". Adding unreferenced pov statements to biographies of living people is vandalism, therefore I am doing good here. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have some what of a temper - and remove items from your own talk page. Pity, listening would help. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted accusations - obfuscation. Which part of this prominant notice on my talk page do you not understand -

Please do not use the "Plus" button above
I like to keep my discussion together, so please start on my talk page but,

If I start a discussion with you on your Talk Page, please respond to it there because:
Your talk page will be on my watchlist for a while, maybe forever.
It is easier to keep track of and respond.
If you start a discussion here, I will only respond here, so you might want to watch this page.
I am fed up jumping back and forth!!

Thanks !

Stop duplicating the conversation on my talk page. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my talk page notes? Your temper and apparent blinkeredness is now beyond my belief, taking into account the higher objectives in WP:AGF. Please, calm down and go do some good here. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've obviously over reacted - my apologies. As for your talk page message, since you were editing, I assumed that it no longer applied. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that Daytona2 started a thread at the Admin board about you here. If he let you know earlier I apologise but I can't see a notice on your talk page. Also note that as he has asked you not to post this conversation on his talk page then doing so is unlikely to calm him down don't you think?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Category:Vespa motorcycle images

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Vespa motorcycle images, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Vespa motorcycle images is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Vespa motorcycle images, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fields that are no longer active in the infobox

Hello Trident 13. Please be aware that the height and notable roles fields in infoboxes no longer work. They were deactivated some time ago. Even if you enter and save them they do not show up in the infobox. You just waste computer space when you enter them. Also be aware that after much discussion that the "please add an image" request is no longer to be put in the infox. Reuqests for a picture are now on the talk page for a given actor. Amanda Drew's page already has this request on her talk page, thus, the one in the infobox is not needed. Your help in keeping these clean will be appreciated. Thank you for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Hello again. Please read item number four under the summary section of WP:FLAG wherein it states that flags sould not be used in infoboxes to indicate place of birth or death. Also remember that the image request is now on the talk page and not in the infobox. Your cooperation in following these Manual of Style guidelines will be appreciated. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Guildhall School of Music and Drama. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nappymonster (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Vansnik

I understand the bio criteria. I was using it as supporting evidence rather than a main piece (such as the independent media source) to point out that non-notable people dont have 155,000 hits. Thanks for the heads-up anyway :). Ironho lds 12:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimsuit templates

As a leading editor at Elle Macpherson you may have an interest in the debate at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_27 regarding swimsuit issue templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Style Me With Rachel Hunter

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Style Me With Rachel Hunter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeform

Re your April 5, 2008 edit. Please don't remove accurate, important, and essential information from any article until you read it carefully and understand exactly what it says. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the edit is very justified. Having read the section and the associated articles through, I concluded then as now that its a vanity addition to an article, and not factual or at all referenced. If you feel the system highlighted is a suitable addition to Wikipedia, then I suggest you start a new article on that system and its record, which must of course be referenced. Adding it to Timeform is trying to justifying its inclusion on the back of something else. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest you read what the Timeform article said because these figures are extremely important to members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. The article states its source properly: "The figures below are official All-Time Highweights [---] supplied by Mr. Neil O'Connor of Timeform." According to Wikipedia policy, this is in fact a proper reference just as we quote any reliable source who references a provided fact in their writings -- unless you are suggesting that Columbia University Professor Roman is a liar? Handicapper (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oi - see the old talk page discussion, which I have referred to in my latest removal of this non-associated data. Unless you can show its relevant, and correctly reference it which it is till not, I will if you revert again and add this non-relevant associated data to a discussion in the racing group pages. Again I ask, as you seem so agitated to keep this related but not Timeform data - are you Steven A. Roman? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit. Please have the courtesy to discuss your opinion of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing rather than ignoring enunciated facts. Then, if you still disagree, as the instigator or this issue please follow Wikipedia guidelines and set up a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Note, smart-ass comments don't help and are insulting to someone who actually make very substantial and real contributions to Wikipedia. Thanx. And just for the record, you have absolutely zero comprehension of what was said on the Timeform Talk page as that issue was resolved in full. Handicapper (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Sharleen Spiteri

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trident,

Sorry not to get back to you earlier - I am indeed MaggyW (not MaggieW as you wrote).

Apologies that I've breached guidelines...I did wonder if it was borderline but I was just trying to amend some errors that the kind people from Opus Dei had made in putting me up on Wikipedia - apart from anything else, as you can see, people find it very easy to spell my name incorrectly!

You're most welcome to remove the entry if it's a problem.

Very best wishes,

Maggy —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggyW (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Paulson - removed Graffiti

ChrisG nyc (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, you beat me to the edit on Henry Paulson's page. Played Nostradamus 'Bull' Shannon on Night Court! (I have to admit, I did laugh) By the time I logged in to remove it you had already pulled it down.[reply]

Yeah - Army boys! I'll forgive them that for what they are doing for us all, to allow us to catch them doing it! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Fryslan

You might consider joining WikiProject Friesland for we allways need more participants. We can always use someone to help us to cope with vandalism on our articles or to create templates, upload images. No real knowledge is required. Just more members is what we need and a more international participant list would be great. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Highland Railway

The information you "restored" is wrong. Your Source was wrong. The information as I wrote it, was confirmed by the F&WHR Deputy Operations manager, minutes before posting. This was not reference by some third party source. He wished he had three carriage sets at Dinas (Not called Dinas Junction since the closure in 1936) Furthermore, your transcription from the source was wrong. What does the word stepness mean??? Where does it say a pair of WHR(C) engines will be running from Porthmadog??. Have you seen this draft timetable? As far as I am aware, it has not been seen outside the company, and at the date of the article had not been approved by its board - hence their (Daily Post) comment on through running which has now been corrected in an online post by the General Manager. There is other sources which give the definitive modus operendi for the operation of the Cae Pawb- Harbour section, which do not require a permanent manning of the crossing (i.e out of hours running). You missed the fact the gates have been in position for some 9 months. Keith 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much as though you claim to be an expert on the WHR, what you seem to misunderstand is that "F&WHR Deputy Operations manager, minutes before posting" can't be referenced suitably for WP:REF. Your edits also appear aggressive, and you have dismissed a number of referenced edits to the official website. Everything I put in was referenced to the official website - including the word stepness, if you cared to read the official website. I suggest for your own good, let alone that of others editors involved who have referenced to the official website (which for your own note references the operations and reasons for removal of the Ffestiniog locomotives), or anyone who comes along later, you start a discussion on the articles talkpage. It is a tough lesson to learn, and much as tough you may have inside information from your position BUT unless it can be independently referenced, its next to useless here! Start a discussion and reach an agreement, don't go swathing around and dismissing - it doesn't help anyone. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do not, and never have, classed my self as an expert, or anywhere near that class. I would just say I am involved, just like about 400 other people. (but I dont expect you would understand the reelevance)

The errors introduced by your edit, which were numerous, were indicative that you have no actual knowledge of the railway, or at least the level needed to understand what you were saying. You were solely referring to the reference materials you have quoted, WHICH ARE WRONG. (Note plural - not just errors in one item) Irresepctive of any references you may use, if the information is known (by the people involved) to be wrong - there is no discussion - it will be removed! irrespective of any references. Placing factually incorrect information is worse than placing information without reference! If you think this is wrong then get a life. Keith 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Re your end comment of "manstaruk needs to read WP:REF - start of discussion)". You will be pleased to know, I have complied. to quote from the top of the article you directd me to read it states (with my emphasis only) "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." and "This page describes how to use citations in articles."

There was little point reading further - that ends whatever discussion you intended. Keith 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodham Brothers

I appreciate your changes (typically Woodham's Scrapyard to Woodham Brothers scrapyard) but could you check whether an apostrophe has been added after 'Brothers]]'? (it is needed). I've modified the two articles I have come across so far (GWR 56xx, SR WC/BB).

(I don't know what the MOS says about adding an 's' after the apostrophe after Brothers, but I think it looks odd in this case, so I have omitted it.)

Thanks EdJogg (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (PS is your WikiBreak notice still relevant?)[reply]

[update] Having thought about it, this will depend on context. The two instances I mentioned did need an apostrophe, whereas the instance in the lead of Barry Island Railway ("the former Woodham Brothers scrapyard.") does not. (No chance for a bot edit then!)

EdJogg (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Thanks! But they spell it on their website and in their companies house registration without the apostrophe. It is always a difficult one, but I tend to go with the company/organisation spelling over any punctuation rules, even if the company gets it wrong! Look after yourself - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK -- I'd already given up trying to 'fix' it! Having done the two I mentioned I saw a number of other instances, and the more I looked, the less I could work out whether an apostrophe was needed or not!! EdJogg (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Highland Railway

I dont know why you restored the "partial" note to my talk page, and quoted WP:AGF. As it triplicates in part, I have restored to the previous version, leaving the comment as it stood. (i.e. partial and triplicate)

With reference to WP:AGF. editing a file as you attempted, under the following conditions:

a) without knowledge of the basic facts
b) using sources, some of which are suspect, though admittedly you are not aware of such
c) making assumptions of which you have no knowledge.

is tantamount to vandalising a page. I note from your home page you have done over 26,200 edits during your time on Wikipedia. This is a fantastically high level in a short space of time (work out the maths), and given what you have attempted to do on the WHR file, gives me a grave suspicion into the validity of any of those other 24,000 edits.

In doing this kind of editing,(and you are not alone in this), you must realise that you are compromising the validity of the information contained within Wikipedia.

"Assuming Good Faith" is not enough, it is an excuse - knowledge of the subject is a pre-requisite.

There again, going by the message at the top of this page, it seems a waste of time and effort responding to your childish defence

--Keith 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns; tagging

Hello, Trident13. Thank you for pointing out your copyright concerns with Image:Holly Willoughby.jpg. I'm dropping you a line just to let you know that the tag that you placed on the image, {{copyvio}}, is specifically used for text that violates copyright. For images that are clear copyright violations, you can follow the procedure for speedy deletion. For images that are suspected to be copyright violations, we have a review board for possibly unfree images. For images used under suspect non-free content criteria, we have non-free content review. I have corrected the tag on this image so that it can be handled in the proper venue, but I wanted to let you know for future use in case you should encounter another image that raises concerns. Thanks again for pointing out the potential problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wales

In regards to the article the UoW has only ever validated the degrees not run the universities. The institutions had only applied for an alteration to their Royal Charters to allow them the power to award their own degrees if they wish. Until the Universities award degrees using their own powers they are not independent of the UoW same as UCL and the LSE along with Kings are not independent of the University of London, whereas Imperial is as it uses its own degree awarding powers. Secondly until they are given a different status from 'Accredited; on the University of Wales site or release a press statement stating otherwise, creating an additional category is presumptive and POV. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove of article - Rudi Vansnick

Hi - I note that you have contributed the article Rudi Vansnick. However, having noted your Wiki editors name tag, I believe you are Rudi Vansnick. Can you please confirm you are Rudi Vansnick? If yes as I suspect, then unfortunately the article Rudi Vansnick needs to be removed, as a self-written biography breaks Wikipedia's rules on neutrality - see WP:NPOV. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very straneg, you prefer having strangers talking about certain other persons in stead of having the person posting the correct and only information about his person. So, I just have to ask some one else to drop in the article and it's ok. I can prove several sites and organisations can state my personal CV. So what's next to do ? Rudi Vansnick - President ISOC Belgium —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruudisoc (talk • contribs) 22:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear rules on the writing of a biography of any person - see WP:BIO. In summary, the rule accepts the proposal that the writer of their own bio would have a biased opinion, and hence the rule. Secondly, the references applied to the biography of Rudi Vansnick were self-referenced to things he had written himself, which broke rules on references - see WP:REF. Thirdly, even putting those issues aside, the deletion record and debate shows that in the opinion of various Wikipedia editors, there was insufficient reference-able evidence to prove notability of Rudi Vansnick, and hence no need for an article on Wikipedia even if it was rewritten. The article was hence deleted under Wikipedia's rules. If you had felt differently, you could have added to the debate at the time - I have in the past saved self-written bio articles. But in this case there was no input from yourself, and in light of the lack of suitable third party references, presently seems no need for such an article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hafod Estate

Thanks for the help with Hafod Estate. ~Geaugagrrl^talk 20:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic revival architecture

It's fine to add "in England" to the Gothic Revival Architecture category, but when there is Gothic (actual not Revival) architecture in the church as well as Gothic Revival, please do not delete it - it's a bother to revert it. Thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Revival is a sub-category of Gothic, so no need for both. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is not supported in any of the relevant WP articles - English Gothic architecture, Gothic Revival architecture or Gothic architecture. In fact the last article discusses the differences between Gothic survival and Gothic revival. In my opinion (for what it matters) there is a world of fundamental difference between true original Gothic, developed over centuries by medieval masons working at the forefront of building technology, and Victorian architects who copied some of their ideas and designs. But I am no expert in architecture, so I am asking for guidance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. I will add a link when then is done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, I'm reading Pugin's biography at the moment, so I might be able to help - our article isn't great on Gothic Revival. In a nutshell - Gothic Revival took it's first steps with Horace Walpole's Strawberry Hill which took a romantic inspiration from the original Gothic, but lacked felicity of detail. Pugin and his father amongst other started to document original Gothic in the early 1800's and Walter Scott's novels fired the public imagination regarding the gothic. For Pugin (who converted to Catholicism and writes with near missionary zeal), the original Gothic was the only moral architecture for a Christian nation, in opposition to the essentially pagan and Mediterranean architecture of classicism. So influential were his writings and buildings that the idea took off - to eventually become the defacto architecture of state in the rebuilding of the Palace of Westminster, Manchester Town Hall and also new building types such as St Pancras railway station and the Natural History Museum. The break with formal classicism (which also had some 19th century revivals) emphasised not just felicity of detail, but also rational planning, asymmetry, craft (William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement are indebted to the revival) and a retrospective notion of medieval guilds and community (which felt under threat from industrialisation).

In contrast, true Gothic is as Peter contends, the result of an organic medieval evolution from Romanesque architecture that gradually pushed itself through trial and error to progressively more daring structures and to the medieval mind became a microcosm of the universe (interestingly secular as well as sacred). The building of such structures to the glory of God became the prime focus of a society that saw their construction as redemptive.

Gothic Survival - typically at Oxford, Cambridge, etc. was simply the continuance of the original Gothic principles being built in the same way and ignoring subsequent developments in the timeline of architecture - eg. the introduction of classicism at Queen's House Greenwich.

So to say "Gothic Revival is a sub-category of Gothic" isn't really the case - my view is to categorise Revival and Gothic separately - but you might include the survival stuff (there's not that much) into the Gothic proper. Hope that helps. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter - great points! The problem we have here is that when new editors want to add a new article, most will copy an existing article. Hence, you only need one Gothic and Gothic Revival categorised article to be copied, and then for more established editors to copy the precedent - and we resultantly have both categories stuffed to the brim with the same articles: making the two categories pointless. I am not an architectural expert, just an amateur fan of great design, but from a wikipedia view point the question if articles should appear in both sections is why do you need both categories? I think we have to make academically and encyclopedicly defined decisions in such cases, and focus groups here are the best way to define the policy. I thank you for your input, great discussion, and please let me know the outcome: and if ever I can help you, please just ask! With Best Regards, - Trident13 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new subcat Category:English Gothic architecture. I hope that solves any problems, potential or real. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New categories in Education

Hello - I started to revert some of your edits, but thought that before I went any further I'd engage in some discussion here, as I think there may be some way forward. I notice you created new categories:

Teacher associations based in the United Kingdom
Category:Standardised tests in the United Kingdom

However, I'm not sure if these are the best titles for these as the articles you've included in them do not really fit these categories. For example, in Teacher assoc's you have included the Graduate & Registered Teacher Programmes which are training programmes linked to various establishments, rather than associations. Similarly, you had listed QTS which is actually a qualification / status rather than association. In the standardised tests cat you have included all the Key Stage articles, while these are actually periods of study, not tests of qualifications in themselves. As I say, my temptation is to remove these articles from these cats, but perhaps you'd rather relabel the cats if you think it's worth keeping those articles together? Tafkam (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! I started out at Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom which was packed full and not making use of already created sub-categories. On sorting them down, a number of educational related articles appeared in many areas, including: independent schools; teacher groups; student groups; research, etc. From a practical point of view, most of the independent schools are charities, so those that had just been placed in the top category were sorted downwards into the new category Category:Educational charities based in the United Kingdom. I didn't create any new categories which didn't already have an existing country split somewhere in that created line, mainly from United States principle- ie: I just copied that structure, not creation of a new structure. Having got that down, I then moved onto Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom. Again, a number of educational organisations appeared, which had been over categorised - again, I followed the existing country split, mainly form existing US splits. After nearly two days of sorting, I am sure I have probably miss-sorted a couple of articles, so if you think an article should sit in a different category, then please feel free to sort it across. But please don't push it back up to Category:Education in the United Kingdom - it was a mess! If you need some help, please just ask. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply - I have moved the RTP and GTP articles to the cat for Professional certification. I am minded to just remove the current cat from the 6 Key Stage articles, as they are already listed under Educational stages, and while they are unique to England, there is not really any sub-cat in Education in England suitable for them, since they are merely English educational stages. Any thoughts? Tafkam (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cothay Manor

Well done for creating the article - I'm just adding cats & refs. I have a picture to add but commons servers are being slow. How do you feel about an infobox for the article?— Rod ^talk 22:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, happy to go find a suitable infobox. Next job after that will be the creation of the Greenham, Somerset article. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best just to do Greenham, Somerset as a redirect to Stawley which is its parish & Stawley might be too small for its own article.— Rod ^talk 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there's a nice ref on Du Cann's wife being buried in the local church. Someone can always open it up later. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlets?

Hi T13, thx` for work on Hamlets in Derbyshire. Do you have a definition? I thought it was "small without a church" ... yes I know thats vague. Thats why I asked, because Norbury for instance has a very fancy church. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bloom

I dont know what you said I deleted from referenced material I have endeavored to include only referenced material from booksmagazines or newspapers(----)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xol2007 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for David Ross (businessman)

On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Ross (businessman), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turnbridge Locomotive Lift Bridge

Hi! Thanks for the comments on my bridge image, used on the Turnbridge article, which you have now used in the article you created on the bridge itself. I have uploaded two additional images of it and placed them on the new article page in Gallery format. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been renamed Turnbridge Lift Bridge. The previous title was a conglomeration of its official name and a reference to its shape. None of the references wquoted call it by that name. There never has been an actual rail connection with the bridge. --Keith 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]