User talk:Trident13/archive2009

Proposed deletion of Kando

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kando, 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. McKorn (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy articles

What's the point of articles like this one? I noticed there are some others on your stubs page that are spammy in tone as well. Usually similar articles are CSD tagged but since you regularly edit I thought to ask you first. -- Menti sock 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of personal stubs - it is NOT an article until published - is to collect various pieces of data together for editing, to create a new article of the required depth and conformity to wikipedia standards. During that construction phase, as a personal stub, you can't delete it because it is not published - and at some stages during construction it might look "spammy." Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually APNC is a pretty long article and seems complete (from PR's perspective) so I didn't think it was a stub. Still, there's no need to sound spammy when building articles and usually user pages that advertise are still deleted like articles in mainspace otherwise companies can use the loophole to spam. -- Menti sock 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to remove the cat's than anything else! I find stubs useful for collecting data on subjects which may/not pass WP:NOTAB, but are not of a standard for main space - something I find may make it clearer of their notability. Have not yet seen in my nearly three years here one of my stubs used as a spam point - although I can see the opportunity. I think its more likely from experience that companies create spammy articles in the main space, or more likely add to good basic and factual articles with whole detailed lists of products. Look after yourself! Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's 'cat's'? In all reality though, the APNC article seems more like a copy-and-paste (in which case it could also qualify as a copyvio, but the URL is down). And surely you're talking about 'stubs' loosely here - most of the articles are years old as well so it's not like they're being actively 'worked' on. Can we try an MfD at least to see what other people think? -- Menti sock 09:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what your point is! First you are suggesting its fit for production, now its suitable for deletion??? Personal stub pages are personal sandboxes - places for creating. If your issue is that I have not progressed the pages as quickly as you desire, then please note they are my stub pages/my sandbox - I am still not sure if there is an article in that subject, and if so don't believe they are of the required quality. Can I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:User_page and specifically the section on how you can use such pages. If your point is that it can't make an article, then why not say that in the first place? I am happy to do that, but you seem at present to speak with little purpose and wholly in rhymes. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just said it looked 'complete' from a company's point of view. The main issue is that they really look like a copy/paste from a company's website which includes all the spammy talk. You don't usually start stubs with material that sounds like it's promoting the company. It's this: "user pages that go beyond [...] into advertising may be tagged for speedy deletion" and "the only exceptions are that test edits and the re-creation of deleted material (within limits - which, by implication, don't include spam) are permitted in user space" may be relevant in this context. Userspace is not as strict as mainspace and could include subjects that aren't notable and other experiments but spam/advertising-sounding material usually isn't allowed. -- Menti sock 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jim McColl

On January 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim McColl, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hollins Murray

Re - the above - great beginnings of a wikipedia page on a fascinating man. Did you know he also wrote his own book of poems called 'Random thoughts in verse'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilblueser (talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) ]][reply]

Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502

I'm going (today sometime) bring this article up for consideration at the AfD (Articles for Deletion) page with the suggested outcome of "merge" with the Bugatti Type 57 artlcle. User:MickMacNee is incorrect to close the discussion of this, therefore I will elevate it to serious discussion. Proxy User (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trident

As Carol Kirkwood's agent - it is my responsibility to maintain an accurate page for my client. If such information is to be disseminated it should, I'm sure you agree, be accurate. Given that this page originally got the background and age of my artist wrong - and because media outlets seem to take the information enclosed in this inaccurate site as gospel - you can understand the need for me to monitor this carefully. The only information I have added or removed is purely for the sake of accuracy. Perhaps you should turn your attention to the libellous comments that I have just removed instead of worrying about those people who are trying to ensure the accuracy of this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonteepierre (talk • contribs) 06:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

external links question

Dear Trident Re: your deletion of external link from Tourism in Wales page. I was wondering why you had removed the links to Welsh rarebits and great little places, if this is because of advertising then you also need to remove the visit wales link. I have read the Wp:ext doc and cant see why you have removed these links, cheers Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sassyj007 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

I never edited a page on Carlos Slim Heiu. I don't even know who that is. Please take more care next time before making accusations of someone of defacing Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.74.240 (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Qamishli

Assyrian (Assyria) just relegins (Christian) it’s not nation

We know as a Muslim Arab people there are no nation called Assyrian it’s false name, we know there are few hundred Christians living in Qamishli ,and they came from Greece and Turkey as asylums and Syrian government give hem full right in Syria ,and most of them they went to Europe and America, Canada .we never heared about Assyrian in Qamishli ,maybe a few people left in Qamishli not more than 200 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.84.9 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Morgan 'Family' Entry

Dear Trident 13

I have recently noticed the editing you have undertaken to the entry in my name. The entire background entitled 'Family' is factually incorrect on the following grounds:

1. I do not have three children from my first marriage. 2. My first wife and I were divorced in 2000 - I did not divorce her. 3. The £100m divorce settlement is total press speculation and none of the figures in the press are true. The settlement between me and my ex-wife is a private matter. We have never commented on its contents and never will. The figures bandied about in the press are total speculation and therefore this reference is wholly inaccurate. 4. The amount raised from my Redrow share sale in 2000 was substantially below the £198m quoted. 5. I had been living in Jersey since 1996. 6. I have been living in Cheshire since 2005 - four years before my 'greater involvement with Redrow.'

In view of the above inaccuracies I have removed the family section. If you must refer to family at all please adopt the previous accurate wording, which reflects the true circumstances. (I have already made this edit and trust you will respect it).

Regards

Steve MorganSpmorgan (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for taking my comments on board. Thanks too for your good wishes re Wolves. Regards SteveSpmorgan (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Philp

Thanks, I keep locating new information via corresponding with ex-boxers and old newspapers. Will provide edit summaries in future. Escapement (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct truck manufacturers

Isnt this for defunct companies, not companies that doesnt make trucks anymore? --Typ932 ^T·C 15:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to put up the stress level but I am disputing the cat Defunct truck manufacturers of the United Kingdom for several reasons. The item you are refering to is a lorry- truck is either slang or an Americanism, which is not appropriate to a UK cat tree. Secondly the title is ambiguous. Thirdly shouldn't the title be either Manufacturers of defunct vehicles in the United Kingdom or Defunct manufacturers of vehicles in the United Kingdom. Most adjective can be used to qualify a noun and as a stand alone description- some can only be used in the second way- I have only heard defunct used that way. Now on to Aveling and Porter, as a manufacture principally of road rollers. The name is defunct, the company has been merged beyond recognition, it never manufactured trucks- only an occasional Steam Waggon, I am reverting the tag.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit, I wouldn't normally use the words "defunct" or "truck" - but those are the chosen existing formats for Wikipedia! So either we end up using words which mean more to some, or follow the existing Wikipedia category forms. Having been through such a series of debates before, I conclude under the forms and guides of Wikipedia on categories, that: (1) the existing category forms which are in place set a precedence; (2) are also the more globally used terms; (3) and hence followed existing protocol. The category covers both defunct and former truck manufacturing companies. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just passing through. Sure, that's the policy; I can have truck with that. But it doesn't help the user who is searching for former lorry manufacturers in the United Kingdom. A good way to determine standard usage is the Langensheidts Deutsch-Englisch Wörterbuch which labels regional usage. I just think that ever so occasionally we should point out, that it is pointless using regionalised gobblydegook with incorrect grammar for cats. Try this reference from [Old Possum].- it may help! :) --ClemRutter (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AutoEuropa

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of AutoEuropa, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Autoeuropa. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of National Historic Fleet, Core Collection

I have nominated National Historic Fleet, Core Collection, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Historic Fleet, Core Collection. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Piping Hot (surfwear)

A tag has been placed on Piping Hot (surfwear) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Trevor Marron (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposition of deleting this. I tidied it up and couldn't find one decent ref for notability. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Piping Hot (surfwear)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Piping Hot (surfwear), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Company not of note. No references. Company web site dead. I originally tagged for speedy but the tag was removed and a minor edit took place, but not enough to establish why the company is worthy of it's own article.

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. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trident13/Goldsmiths: either spam or a copyvio

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Trident13/Goldsmiths, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 14:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at User:Trident13/Goldsmiths

Hi there Trident13! I saw that you added a {{hangon}} tag to a page which you created, User:Trident13/Goldsmiths. This is good, but in the process you removed the tag requesting deletion under CSD G11. Even though there is a hangon on the page, the deletion template should remain there. But don't worry, this doesn't mean that the page is going to get deleted. Make sure you edit the talk page of the page nominated for deletion, located at User talk:Trident13/Goldsmiths, administrators will look at your reason why the page should remain before they decide what to do. Thanks - SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Bosch page

Hi Trident13 Thanks for your message about my page on Worcester Bosch. Unfortunately I'm not an employee - I created the page in a fit of enthusiasm prior to an interview for an internship but I didn't get the job. I thought I might like to use it to kick-start my Wikipedia journey but I hadn't realised how seriously it's taken or how much commitment's involved so I am having second thoughts about bothering with anything else. I spent loads of time on the page but I don't really mind if you feel you want to take ownership of it or take any other action. I suppose the reason I created the page could be seen as slightly biased and I'm a bit embarrassed that I only now realise that's a really obvious Wiki policy. I'm really sorry if I've caused a problem. AngelaAtkinson (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry - anyone can and should edit here. I was just worried about the bias the article showed, and your explanation is more than adequate - Thank You! As a side issue - commenting with my day-job recruiter hat on - that is an excellent way of researching companies: keep it up! 2/3rds of candidates never do any more research than read the job advert, and with that attitude you should find employment very soon. If you need help, just ask - Best Rgds, --Ian (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Piping Hot (surfwear)

I have nominated Piping Hot (surfwear), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piping Hot (surfwear). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real estate and property developers

I have noticed you have been removing this category from some articles and replacing it with Category:Real estate companies of the United States. I have several issues with this since builders are not always real estate companies so this change is likely not correct. I thing you should take the splitting of that category to WP:CFD to get more opinions. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - hope this finds you well! TonyTheTiger rv'd my edit to Donald Trump, here is the comment I made on his talkpage:

Hi, hope this finds you well! I noticed you reverted my edit to Donald Trump. I was in the process of sorting out the categories under real estate, and found that the terms/cats Category:Businesspeople in real estate, Category:Real estate companies and Category:Real estate and property developers had become unclear, and all terms/cats were being used for some/all articles which could be associated in that area. I hence reorganised the people into Category:Businesspeople in real estate, the companies into Category:Real estate companies or country sub-sections where they existed, and made both of these sub-categories of Category:Real estate and property developers. Hence, Mr Trump is correctly categorised, as cat in Category:Businesspeople in real estate it sub cats into Category:Real estate and property developers. I hope this clarifies my edit, and I hence reverted your edit to Trump, to reflect the new category/sub-category structure. If you have any questions, please - just ask. Best Regards, - Trident13

Before I take it to WP:CFD, could you give me your thoughts, and the way in which to pose the debate? Things which I think should be considered would include: (1) that most editors don't realise the sublties of the difference between Real Estate and Property Development, particularly those outside the USA; (2) there are a number of "vanity-esque" articles presently in the area of real estate/property development (3) as a result of sorting on a company v individual basis, there are enough articles now in each category now to sort on a country level those in the area of real estate/property development. Once again, thank you for your help - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. So let's keep the discussion there. Some of the CfD regulars have my talk page on their watch lists. So it may get some comments from others if we propose something unacceptable. I'll also drop Tony a note. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pershore College

Hi Trident13/archive2009! An article you have created, contributed to, or edited has been proposed for merging. Please see the discussion at Talk:Pershore College#Merge proposal, and leave your comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of Drama Schools

I am writing to ask why you pursued the merging of the category on theatre schools into the drama schools category. Having read your comments on the categories deletion page, I agree that there is no legal definition of what a drama school is, however, I do think this decision needs to be looked at again, taking into consideration conventional ideas of what is a drama school. For example, there are now dance or musical theatre schools categorised as drama schools, regardless of whether or not they teach any form of drama. I strongly disagree with yout opinion that any educational drama and theatre establishments can be classed as drama schools and I would like you to reconsider this. Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ignore that, I think alongide the drama school category, the "Schools of the performing arts in the United Kingdom" category works to cover any schools that have an alternative focus to dramaCrazy-dancing (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the nomination, which is now closed and implemented, was to create a consistency of categorisation. The implementation now creates a weight of articles in the category to create sub-categories possibly in both a geographic as well as artistic format. My view is that Drama Schools should be a sub-category of Theatre, and Performing arts education, the later of which can cover schools, colleges and university departments which can cover pretty much anything in the performing arts area. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing categories

Would you please delete these categories you have been adding for fishing articles. You do not seem to have discussed the matter first at the relevant project, Fisheries and Fishing. Creating categories with such small scopes just cause headaches and problems for people trying to organise the project. You have added an unhelpful subcategory, and then within that category further subcategories. Then you have put fishing organisations in these categories, when they belong in Category:Fishing organisations. If you think it is okay to do what you are doing, then for consistency, we would have add hundreds, maybe thousands more categories for things line "Recreational fishing in Florida", "Recreational fishing up the Zambezi", most with hardly any articles in them. If you are interested in "Recreational fishing in the United Kingdom" then write an article about it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message - can I please request you read WP:AGF. Having looked at the poor information around Fishing in the United Kingdom, and noticing that Wikipedia's set preference is to separate Commercial Fishing from Recreational Fishing, I merely followed the precedents for Wikipedia's categories. Whether other countries need categories is a point of debate for others, I am just concentrating on the under informed area of UK fishing. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in Wales

Hi there, Good work finding the right categories for many of the governing bodies of sports in Wales. Curious as to why you think they shouldn't be in the Category:Sport in Wales, though (removing Sport in Cardiff from Category:Sport in Wales was a particular surprise). Daicaregos (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view was placing them both in the top category and their respective sport in wales categories was a double categorisation, which is not allowed in the rules and something I hate. I hence pushed them to the relevant sub-category if it existed. If not, then I left them in sport in wales. Hope that helps. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHR - again

Re the edits on Traeth_Mawr_Loop.

I have some concern over the section you have input, i.e.
A siding is now in place on the former loop site, with a point facing northwards towards Caernarfon, to allow storage of permanent way vehicles. For the 2010 season, a southern point will be located to reinsert the loop, allowing Welsh Highland Railway (Porthmadog) trains to again run on the mainline.

The reason being a) there is no source given for this information.
b) this "siding" has not been reported via the normal channels (i.e. company or support)
c) this is news that a new "loop" is to be created there "again".
d) the WHR(P) you quote, ceased to exist at the end of last year.
e) In the current state of things, there may be no trains running south of Pont Croesor on the main line due to factors not mentioned.

Please either show a verifiable, and correct source, or remove this piece. --Keith 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask that as the self pro-claimed "expert/font of all knowledge" on WHR issues, you read WP:AGF as your attitude in presently aggresive/unproductive to say the least and against the aims of the Wikipedia Project. I suggest you might try reading some of the official and unoffical sources (North Wales Track Gang report 21/6/09) - I assume a photo of a siding in place is good enough evidence? If you come back to debate this, please come back with a WP:AGF attitude. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of any attitude problem, your information is in error. The article you quote above does not relate to Traeth Mawr Loop, but Pont Croesor loop. They are two seperate locations, approximately 1 km apart. Your point about WP:AGF Assume Good Faith, AGAIN (remember this is not the first time), is no justification for putting incorrect information in. --Keith 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shoould alsp be noted that at the location of Traeth Mawr Loop an occupation overbridge has been built. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinmore Manor

Though the main article is of the house, there is already a connection in the article to the locomotive. The link is to a definitive website article relating to the title. As such, a query of "Dinmore Manor" would bring this article up. I do not see where WP:SPAM comes into this. However, there is already a reference in the "References", so it is irrelevant here

--Keith 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brother of Harley F Copp

I am the older brother of Harley, and a minor but the eldest editor (1921) of Wikipedia. I am impressed by your work. Robert Copp CoppBob@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoppBob (talk • contribs) 01:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHR - Traeth_Mawr_Loop and Pont Croesor Loop

I missed this last comment

The loop is in the same location, as is seen from both the notes on the photograph and the comparisons with earlier photo's of the old loop.

Traeth Mawr Loop was located at approximately Ch32670, by the original chainages. Pont Croesor Loop is located at Ch 31150 - these numbers being approximations. Please see [1] for accurate detail.

Now read again the notes you quote - you will find that a) It does not mention Traeth Mawr b) it does not mention WHR(P)

If you bothered to check your information after my first comment, you would have realised your error!. Instead you make stupid, and inaccurate comments. However - since you dont read these comments, (per the comment at the top of this page), making any is a waste of anyones time! --Keith 18:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha R1

Hello, Trident13. You have new messages at Talk:Yamaha YZF-R1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Dbratland (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha YXF-R1 - personal attack

No personal attack has been made. Just stop placing personal opinion and incorrect assumptions in your posts
But since you dont read or abide by what you write, it is irrelevant. --Keith 04:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is some time since you made the acqusation of me making a personal attack upon your editing on Wikipedia. I have deliberately left it for some time to consider a response for the comments you made, and can now go through your comment word by word. As you only used plain text, I have highlighted my responses to ensure the two are not confuseded.

You write:- Can you please suspend your personal attacks, and read WP:ATTACK
Response:- How would you class "Can I please ask that as the claimed self pro-claimed "expert/font of all knowledge" on Welsh Highland Railway issues" -

You Write (previously):- Much as though you claim to be an expert on the WHR
Response:- No such claim has ever been made, and was strenuously denied immediately.

General response:- Whos been attacking whom????

You write:- How you edit or add to wikipedia, and how I add may be different, but that doesn't need to result in disagreement.
Response:- Where it shows you have no direct knowledge of the subject, but are purely relying on the information posted elsewhere - correct or otherwise - it is of great concern to ALL when you also make assumptions and enter information that is incorrect. It is vandalisim!

General response:- Since you started on Wikipedia, you are recorded as having made 46957 edits covering a rather large range of subjects - how many do you have a personal connection with??? Was Erika Chambers a nice lady?.
I admit, at 1254 edits over a longer period, my contributions are less, but there again I have other things in life to deal with. Apart from some typo corrections, I usually have, or have had, a direct personal connection with them - hence I can, with some authority, make entries on them.

You write:- Using the term "again" in your recent views of my edit to your claimed involvement in the Welsh Highland Railway was purely inflammatory.
Response:- On at least two occasions you have edited a WHR related file, and in doing so have:-
i) in the first instance, used old material and made assumptions on the cause and effect of certain actions and subsequently placed false information on the record. I refer to the transfer of locos to the northern branch early in the rebuild.
ii) in the second instance, recently, totally misread the source information and accredited it to another location. Then made assumptions based on out of date material. When questioned about this, you did not bother checking the material, and launched into the PERSONAL ATTACK mentioned in the respone in the first item. Even when the error was pointed out, and evidence was shown, you repeatedly asserted the validity of your information.
--Keith 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Extended wikibreak"

Hi,

I notice you have a two-year-old "Extended wikibreak" notice at the top of this page. Is that still the case? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Nutt

Hi, someone pointed out User:Trident13/DNutt on the talk page of David Nutt. I've boldly copied some of it into the article, I hope you don't mind. Smartse (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful of Biker-Biker

[Biker-Biker]'s entire like appears to be doing Wikipedia. I noticed that you undid something he did on BMW templates. It is a no-win deal to get into a battle with someone who appears to have no life outside of Wikipedia. 72.171.0.141 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Arney?

Regarding the edit you made to the George Arney page: is that based on the badly cited report in the Daily Mail? Do you have a better source? The said "story" was apparently never reported anywhere else. --Innerproduct (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making edits you can not verify, such as Kirsty Gallacher's place of residence. The simple fact is this: she live in Wentwoth in Surrey, which I can assure you is not in London. You're making an assumption about where she lives - do you think all famous people live in London?

I've edited it again and will continue to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.8.186 (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Gaff

I don't think the edit you reverted was vandalism; see the talk page. The reliability of the Marshall book has been questioned, and there are COI issues. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]