In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.
The article ban (remedy 1) for Fys ( talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom ( talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee FloNight 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've brought up this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan, which you had previously commented on a batch of Manchester councillors including Mr Chohan. I think he is one of the least notable entries. Perhaps you feel like commenting? JASpencer 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you made a disambiguation page for Ian White because of some clever vandalism. Ian White (licensing agent) appears to be a joke. See [ [1]]. Ian White (ice hockey player) appears to be about the same person as Ian White (licensing agent) was before the dab. I think it will need an admin to move Ian White (ice hockey player) back to Ian White. Do you have time to deal with it? I can get to it sometime this week, but not right now. Ingrid 13:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Unfortunately, if there is something we have in abundance, it's Tony's uncivil remarks... :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't have the Rosebery book do you by any chance, I borrowed it from a friend, but only skimmed it and then (unusually for me dutifully) returned it - the page numbers would be helpful for the denial. I'm undecided personally over whether he was gay or not. When I was younger I was told quite a few first hand (horse's mouth)reccolections of him which suggest he was just generally rather odd, if not barking mad! Pity though it's all own research, otherwise the page could be a lot more colourful! Nothing changes in politics really does it?..... Giano 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
I admit I'm a bit baffled by this. What were you thinking of?
William M. Connolley 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)The question is what were you thinking of, since I manifestly did not break the 3RR. Why did you not check my edits before blocking me? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Unblocked (for reasons explained elsewhere). Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted back and left talk notes. If you have an argument that makes sense, I'd be curious. I did scan the talk and it was ass-backwards: no one needs to prove why "The Sun" should redirect to the Sun; people need to prove why a parochial use should override the stunningly obvious redirect to the ball of hydrogen and helium most every living human being sees every day. "What links here" is not a useful proxy in this regard, as I say in the second note—people don't dab the Sun because of how obvious it is. Because I was overriding the talk discussion I invoked WP:IAR and I'll invoke it again because I'll defend this point. Marskell 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
A few months ago you mentioned that this article contained major inaccuracies. Would you be able to help correct some of them, or give me some guidance on what they are? thanks, Warofdreams talk 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
How come he's not a right hon? Halbared 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly Fys, that was very informative. Halbared 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
They're normally used here, especially with multiple post-nominals. I don't believe there is a policy mandating their use, but it seems to be assumed in most places (all the examples with post-nominals in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), for instance, use commas). And though I don't disagree that "John Smith MP" is no less aesthetically pleasing than "John Smith, MP", when more than one is involved it can look horrid without commas ( Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener would look silly if it had "KG KP GCB OM GCSI GCMG GCIE ADC PC" as a string of undivided abbreviations). And, in my opinion, it's logical: Ted Heath wasn't "Sir Edward Heath Knight of the Garter", he was "Sir Edward Heath, Knight of the Garter". Proteus (Talk) 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can you add sources to these images: Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg, Image:Fordstrikers.jpg, Image:Outofpetrol1979.jpg and Image:Armyambulances79.jpg.
Thanks. Edward 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As requested, I've renamed you as User:Fys. You should now move your userpages. I also suggest recreating your previous name and requesting that it is blocked, to prevent impersonation. Warofdreams talk 04:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Before you continue to perform copy-paste moves, could you please use the Move tab at the top of the page to facilitate your username change so the histories are preserved? Ryūlóng 08:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, and I've reverted this.
I'd be all for a centralised discussion on the Manchester councillors although last time this was tried ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester councillors) no concensus could be reached as some councillors were notable, some may be and some weren't. I put in an AFD vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan which came to deletion and I've since put a number of Manchester Councillors on to the merge discussions where there only claim to notability is being a councillor. WP:BIO now states "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability."
There is presently an AfD going on with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraz Bhatti as to whether a parliamentary candidate has sufficient inherent notability which you may want to join. JASpencer 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As you were interested last time, I've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Populist Party (UK). JASpencer 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the POV suspicions that are likely to fly if this idea gets off the ground. However, I think I have made it very obvious on the page that I am a Wikipedian first and a Conservative second and that any possible POV that may be inadvertently added to an article would be immediately ironed out by any peer review or GA or FA nomination. I therefore am not terribly worried, and any editor who thinks such a thing has not read my aims and is assuming bad faith. If you would be willing to act as a NPOV checker for any articles the project works on, I would be delighted to have you on board. Dev920 ( Tory?) 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks! There are plenty more where that came from. Old Queen Street (site of the new Labour HQ), Horse Guards Road, Great George Street... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not positive that I can be added to the list for a month or two. ArbCom simply gave everyone probation, right or not. However, I did get blocked under probation (but it was interpretive, and the admin may have been biased). I did start WP:SRNC to end the dispute though, and since it mostly went my way I wouldn't mass move pages away from what I want, right? Also, my being an admin, having a good reputation, and all... -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It certainly stands to reason that Gerry Studds might be a descendant of Elbridge Gerry, especially since Gerry was also one of Studds's father's given names, but is there any documentation of this descent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbkelley ( talk • contribs)
As I understand it the county is Londonderry and the town is Derry in wiki Weggie 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Fys, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, — Khoi khoi 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. First of all I've understood your motive, but you have gone the wrong way. I think I do not have to explain the normal procedures to you in such a case. :-) By the way there were different various discussions to that topic: Talk:Glenys Kinnock#Baroness, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage#Baroness vs. Lady and someplace, I forgot. Greetings Phoe 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fys. I've noted your exchange with Screensaver, and would be interested to know if you would like to participate to a WikiProject Zambia, in an attempt to expand the treatment on wikipedia of the country. Screensaver is willing, what's your opinion on the idea?-- Aldux 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! -- Elonka 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to tnank you for expressing your intrest in joining my wikiproject on british criime. Please can you advertise the project top as many intrested people as possible so we can this off the ground.-- Lucy-marie 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you nominated the Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) article for a split betwen that and St George Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency).
Would I be right in thinking that this was a mistake, and that you meant to propose a merge to St George's Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency)? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for digging out all those news reports in support of retaining the Piers Gaveston entry. The grounds for deletion strike me as muddleheaded and chippy, but I was sure glad not to have to format the LexisNexis entries. Cheers Robma Robma 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
Hmm, the plot thickens. Well, there aren't many definitive conclusions to be drawn from User:WylEr's list of contributions. Hopefully this will just blow over. FreplySpang 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hu Fys, please rejoin the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square rather than going ahead with and doing a split which it appeas that only you support. Please also be aware of WP:3RR. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fys, as you will see, I have edited the WsG article to include what I believe to be the information you supplied on both the 1885-1918 ST.GHS bounaries and the 1918-19150 boundaries.
Trying to piece things together from disparate version of several articls has been a little difficult may have led to errors. I am reasonably happy that I have accurately reproduced your text on the 1918-1950 boundaries, but I'am concerned that the text on the 1885-1918 boundaries may not be as you intended.
This information is both valuable to the reader (it's great that you have been able to bring forward so much of it) and it is also crucial in helping inform the discussions about wherher the WSG and StGHS should be combined in one article.
If I have gotten any of it wrong, would you be kind enough to leave a note below with corrected text, or at least an indication of the errors?
Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Fys, please don't resume these unilateral edits; please, as repeatedly requested, discuss these contested changes first at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square.
I have lodged an ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fys_breaching_probation.2C_breaking_article_ban.2C_edit_warring_again -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this edit by you. However, I do not see any instance wherein the user has attacked you personally on wikipedia. For this reason, I have removed your edits from the user's talk page. If you have an issue with a particular user, please report it at WP:AN/I. Please be adviced that placing bogus warnings is bad wikiquette, and such continued activity could earn you a block. Thank you. -- thunderboltz (Deepu) 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have temporarily blocked you for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I got your email. Given past experience, I prefer that any discussions between us take place on the Wiki. I have noted my block on ANI, and invite review. Tom Harrison Talk 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You say Nearly-headless Nick told you to fuck off, and "I trust you regard this as unacceptable behaviour in an admin." I regard lots of things as bad, and a few as disruption that needs to be stopped by blocking. I also take into account past records of contributions. I concluded your incivility had become disruptive to the point that a block was needed to stop it. If I had no reason to think any further disruption would occur, there would be no need for you to be blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus supporting your absurd belief that "St George, Hanover Square" is the same as "Westminster, St George's". Your claim that my edits were against consensus is spurious nonsense. If you had read my edit of 11 October correctly you would have known what a ridiculous position you were adopting.
I neither broke the three revert rule nor the terms of the article band, as you ought to have known. Nor could my edits creating a separate article on St Geo HS be regarded in any sense as "vandalism" and you were only being provocative in so describing them.
So long as you regard this as a disciplinary issue I will continue to make a fuss. You give me no reason not to. I no longer really care for any of it. If you had read my edit of 11 October correctly you would never have got into it. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally you miss the significance of a borough constituency being a single undivided Parliamentary borough and being a division of a two-member borough. St George, Hanover Square was a single undivided borough, but St George's was merely one of two divisions of the Parliamentary Borough of Westminster. Since 1950 this has been solely a matter of naming, but in our period here it meant significantly more. Voters could only qualify for a single vote based on the residential franchise, but could qualify under the business premises vote and other ownership franchises for as many votes as they they owned the property for. However, they could only vote once in one Parliamentary Borough. Therefore there was a fundamental difference to business owners in 1918 if they happened to own premises that were in St Geo HS before and Westminster St George's after the boundary change and also owned premises in the old Strand division or in Westminster: before 1918 they could vote in both, after 1918 they could not. There was also a complicated legal technicality which made a difference between voters moving between divisions of a Parliamentary Borough, and those moving from one Parliamentary Borough to another. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 11:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Fys, thanks very much for the really useful detailed info you gave on the chnages. As I have written at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Case_for_split_seems_to_be_proven, I think that you have now clearly proven the case for splitting into two articles. It would be a good idea to see if other editors agree, but your latest data has persuaded me.
Thanks again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In Irish (an teanga O mo Tír) the word Fios (Pron. Fis) means knowledge, or to know, the most popular example being "Níl fhios agam" (I don't know) or Tá Fios agam (I do know). Just thought I'd share. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your enquiry on my talk page though I found it a bit strange to say the least. The The Daily Telegraph reported on 14 March 2005 [4] that Humphrey had talked about his holiday and his plans for the future. I don't think its important, as you seem to suggest, whether he wrote the statement or whether a civil servant wrote it faithfully and issued it on his behalf. However, I'll amend the article to clear-up any confusion. I don't know why you suggest it would be extraordinary to find he had become the first cat to learn English; as though learning a different language would have been easier. Tom 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The South African government !!!!!!!!!!! All the stress I have been put through appears to be down to people not even bothering to read the whole sentence. 82.18.125.110 12:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fys, I have seen you had moved the baron to his normally known name, however, if we use both Christian names, we then should not better let the title away (as in the cases of James Hutchison Hoy and John Fletcher Moulton)? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 17:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ~~
Please vote again to keep the James Patrick Holding article. ken 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Thanks for uploading Image:Charleslatham.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Your article ban from Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all redirects to it has expired. It looks like you've been civilly discussing the matter with other editors, which is great. Please keep it up, and hopefully this ugly matter will all be a thing of the past. Happy editing! -- Slowking Man 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I've been writing an article on Labour MP William Crawford Anderson. Stanton and Lees describe him as having been "Chairman of the National Labour Party" in 1914-15. Spartacus also mentions the post. Presumably this is a separate role to Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I wondered if you could shed any light on it? thanks, Warofdreams talk 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! | |
---|---|
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation. | |
Georgewilliamherbert 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
Please stop adding "helpful" comments at WP:3RR. This is not a page for general users to add their opinions William M. Connolley 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is why having you changing the rules [5] is not acceptable. Please give up you 1-man anti-3RR campaign. I've given you 3 hours to think about it William M. Connolley 12:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's only a short block, just wait it out. And afterwards, make sure any contributions you make to 3RR don't look like admin decisions. Put Opinion: at the beginning, or something. If you don't, it looks like you're impersonating an admin which could easily result in a longer block. -- Tango 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved admin, I have reviewed it, and I've explained my reasoning. As warned, I'm now extending your block to 24 hours and protecting this page to stop you wasting more admin time. Wait for the end of the block, and if you have a real problem with it, go through the appropriate complaints procedures. -- Tango 12:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As Fys's talk page is now protected I'll post here. I've been watching these antics [6] going on for an hour or so, it seems to me this is pointless behaviour by admins. What possible good is going to come of this. Fys is a respected (albeit opinionated) editor, not some little twerp who has contributed nothing of value to the encyclopedia. To now protect his talk page seems rather petty and spiteful - just unblock him , unprotect his page - who here is trying to prove what to whom? I wonder Giano 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Following Giano's objection and a brief discussion on my talk page with another admin, I've decided to let you have one last chance at giving a reasoned appeal, and I'll let another admin be the one to make the final decision. I very much doubt it will make any difference, but I'll do it anyway for the sake of a quiet life. -- Tango 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what could be more blatant an example of a wrongly-applied block. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Unblocked. Ridiculous. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-- GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Wasn't that quite timely. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In the future I strongly suggest that when you make edits to the 3RR page if you do so please make very clear that you are not acting as an admin. That should significantly reduce the associated problems. JoshuaZ 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You commented here on a posting I made today to WP:AN/3RR, and I must say you confused me into thinking you were a commenting admin. -- MichaelMaggs 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:RuthKelly.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.
Hi, I've managed to find a free image of Ruth Kelly so I don't think we need to keep (or can justify keeping under Wikipedia rules) the one you kindly uploaded. WJBscribe 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comments about acting as duty solicitor on 3RR, have you heard of WP:AMA? You might be interested in joining it. -- Tango 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw you said you'd ask all nominees the same questions, so I've pre-emptively answered them. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Will Beback#Questions from Fys. Cheers, - Will Beback · † · 08:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed a section that contained inaccurate information, and links to a libellous web site. This is not vandalism at all. The person's web site whos link I removed is a vandal and a hacker and was arrested for hacking last year, so should not be promoted in any way on this site, which is the home of factual information not lies and self promotion.
You reverting my changes may be vandalism though.
Keep in touch. Detox.
No. you miss the point entirely Tim. IT's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to allow self promotion of this sort. You are Tim Ireland and you are abusing the system. You will be reported and the site will be changed. What happened to Miltox anyways? Regards Detox
Tim this will have to go to mediation now. You have broken the 3RR. You don't seem willing to negotiate and discuss the matter. REgards Detox
Hi, please try not to use summaries that are clearly incorrect in the future, especially when creating pages. I have seen that sort of edit summary many times before; without exception the articles were vandalism. Thanks – Gurch 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking I don't regard new, seemingly random, pages that redirect with sarcastic edit summaries very highly. I apologize that I didn't further look into the issue, but it seemed pretty out of the ordinary. For the record, I did look at the page, but not closely enough apparently. Regards -- dhp1080 ( u· t· c) 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Tim Collins wrote an authorative 700 page book, The Irish Hunger Strikes which also mentioned the Speakers decision not to include the family in his announcement, the book also makes a considerable reference to the reason why terrorusts should not be included, It was part of history and notable so it should be in if either side want it Mark us street Dec5th
At Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Category:Fellows of Queen's College, Oxford you said:
No objection to the renaming, but when are you Oxonians going to get round to changing all your categories to say "Alumni of Foo College, Oxford"? Fys.
There's now a nomination to change them all at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 4#Alumni of the University of Oxford. Timrollpickering 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
All right, I have to know. What about his answer to my third question was so bad? It seemed fairly innocuous to me. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I just saw your vote. Thanks for the feedback.
I feel it is up to the community to decide if this is a good policy or not. I will not have a bigger say so in making policy if I have a seat on ArbCom. The community makes the policy. Currently the policy is not official and still being discussed. Would be great for you to put your comments on the policy talk page.
Does this answer your concern? If so, I appreciate you reconsidering your vote. If not, how can I reassure you and gain your trust? -- FloNight 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fys - thanks for the excellent addition to Georgia's 5th congressional district. Would you be willing to share your source for that info? I've looked arond for a concise listing just like that. Cheers. -- Roswell native 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
David. There seems to be some technical problem with this file. Would you be kind enough to check it out and see if you can sort it?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have read your comments on my Talk and am not interested. Guy ( Help!) 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Fys, please would you help me get Scottish Borders to featured article status?? I see you actively edit UK-related articles, which is good - I do a lot of that too. It's already at peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Scottish Borders/archive1 - all comments appreciated.
I'm not concerned about your past history with regards to things like 3RR or anything like that - it is the past, and you're a good editor, so don't worry! Any help you can give me with regard to British articles is always accepted.
Thanks, -- SunStar Net talk 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, do us all a favor and just stop baiting JzG into making comments as he did. Both of you are on the edge of WP:NPA with what I removed from ANI, but I needn't have to remind either of you of that as you were once an admin, and JzG currently is.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 09:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have read your comments (and noted the extreme irony), but am not interested in further discourse with you on the subject. Guy ( Help!) 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If that applied to me you might have had a point. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been of the opinion that the 3RR, more specifically the way it is interpreted (which makes it practically meaningless) is damaging to Wikipedia, long before I had the misfortune to encounter you. See contribution to mailing list in (I think) October. I notice you don't mention you comprehensively lost the argument on the subject under debate. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't give you the pleasure. For my part I find it objectionable of you constantly to bring up the ArbCom case as evidence of POV when it was no such thing. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between having strong views that an article should endorse a point of view, and having strong views that the article should contain some neutrally phrased information because it makes it a better article. The latter I have; the former, never. Nor do you seem able to realise the reason why I no longer feel compelled to behave: I don't have any reason to. When I did have reason to, I did behave. But since you're going to attack me for misbehaving anyway, I may as well stretch the boundaries and see what I can get away with. Meanwhile, I should say that ATren is correct to say that when you treat people like trolls, you turn constructive editors into trolls. It's tragic but it's true. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is John Gwynne the father of Andrew Gwynne? I remember hearing something about this just after the 2005 election on Sky Sports. If true then it is perhaps worth adding to their respective pages. -- Phildav76 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The Society Barnstar | ||
With thanks for your numerous contributions. Timrollpickering 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
Re: [7]
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Ian Cairns 04:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Birkett.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Williewhitelaw.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NMajdan• talk 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
One of those MPs whose left confusion as to what party he was or wasn't! Your thoughts would be appreciated at Talk:William Craven-Ellis#Party?. Timrollpickering 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
May be coming up for AfD yet again; check the talk page. You commented on the last vote, so I thought I'd mention it, in case you're still interested. - DavidWBrooks 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added an infobox, though seeing as you've posted on the talk page could you expand it with what you know? Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't people names. It's not nice. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Despite continuing warnings, you have continued being uncivil to other editors. You are hereby blocked for 31 hours. As an ex-admin you really should know a lot better. Viridae Talk 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To notify you that I have had no choice but complain about your incivility on the Paul Staines talk page here. DWaterson 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
David, you are being discussed. I realize that perhaps a lot of what's going on stems from the rather raw deal you got before ArbCom but I wish you'd settle down a bit more and be more civil. Based upon what I know of you from before the ArbCom decision, Wikipedia would be worse off without you. Cheers. ( → Netscott) 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at that thread, I have an offer for you. Viridae Talk 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
But since you're on GMT, it's "Good afternoon." I noticed your remarks about JzG and would like to discuss this individual with you. Please e-mail me at "deanhinnen at yahoo dot com" since I feel we have much to talk about. Thank you. Dino 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Fys. As a prominent contributor to Anne Milton, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Anne Milton, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Catchpole 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Catchpole 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mheseltine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! -- Ozgod 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kateadie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood Rexparry sydney's intent - he only wants to move the "History of Southern Rhodesia" section from the Rhodesia article to the Southern Rhodesia article, rather than merging the two articles. I have to say that I also misinterpreted it to begin with! Number 57 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh David, can't you guys just avoid each other say for the next 12 months or so? ( → Netscott) 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hutchesontownc.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈ talk 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed revising the WP:TFA/R process. After the recent rejection of my proposal, I researched Old FAs. You were the nominator of an article that was promoted to WP:FA before 2005, and you continue to be an active wikipedian. Your article has not yet been featured on the main page as a WP:TFA. I am wondering if you have ever made an active effort to get it featured and if you are aware of the new TFA/R procedure, which requires an active request. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Re the sad demise of your nice Druscilla Cotterill article (still in the history of the redirect). I couldn't help noticing that another future small-footnote-in-history, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, is receiving quite different treatment. I also note that the Druscilla Cotterill content was not copied anywhere, as suggested by the AfD, by the person who closed and implemented the AfD. All very sad. Rwendland 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You are completely right, of course. My bad. I don't know what I was thinking... That's what comes of being bored at work. Thanks and apologies! Peeper 08:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have looked with great interest over these articles. The sources that have provided the electoral results, I'm guessing, are not easily available, and you are lucky to be privy to them, yes? Are there are any sources that would provide these results, and able to be obtained without a large amount of effort? Thank you, michael talk 12:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding references to Mark Judge. Davidwr 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you have written extensively on Rhodesian general elections. I am quite awed by the level of detail you give. :)
1. Where do you get your sources from? (I am looking for more sources.)
2. Do you have any suggestions for good articles, books etc that describe both internal white politics, internal black politics and relations between the two sides in Rhodesia up till 1979 in a coherent manor. I am currently expanding and have been rewriting the history of Zimbabwe and would love to get some more sources for better perspective.
3. What was the economy like from 1945 to 1979. I have found some sources and information on this but I want more detail.
4. What would you say are the big picture - long term - causes of Zimbabwe's economic decline since 1980?
Thanks for any insight you can give.
Custodiet ipsos custodes 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Bkell ( talk) 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Calling me an "idiot" and telling me to "go away" because I disagree on the validity of a template is uncivil and inappropriate. This dispute is silly. I will cite the content. In the future please make an effort to cite specific pages rather than listing relevant books. Perspicacite 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg, by
Strangerer, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}}
to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate
Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on
the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --
Android Mouse Bot 2 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the
WikiCookie to the great
Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the
drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.
Hey, Mangwanani started a Zimbabwe WikiProject. If you are interested, please join us. Perspicacite 17:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Fys, and welcome to
WikiProject We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to Zimbabwe. Here are some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. |
The current Zimbabwe WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight is Not applicable! | ||
Please read the nomination text and help improve the article to featured article standard if you can. |
Mangwanani 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, if The Times said it, it must be true - in the words of Thierry Henry, I don't make the rules... I would have thought it obvious that I had simply happened upon my username whilst casting about for a pseudonym for use in pratting about on wikipedia. Except of course, I have subtly altered the brand name to create a rude and mildy amusing malapropism. Do you see it? Barry(off Eastenders) 17:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Just dont, SqueakBox 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin, as is Luna Santin, who also reverted it off Guy's page. If you violate WP:NPA or WP:HARASS further you will be blocked to prevent ongoing abuse.
Just stop it, please.
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
To those warning Fys: that's far from an attack. Maybe it's not the most civil thing to say, but it's not an attack. There's no point in warring over it.
To Fys: let it go. He's left the project, and though I can't say I particularly miss him (I had epic battles with Guy), the fact is that there's no need for you to express that sentiment on his talk page. He's gone; let bygones be bygones, wish him well and move on. ATren 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO it was the reverting the removal that made it an attack, some of us (even we who aint admins) actually like Guy, SqueakBox 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Look who's talking!!!! ....here's ATren 2/2/06: "So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that f*cking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is." Somebody explain why ATren is allowed to "edit" Wikipedia?.... Avidor 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chrischataway.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi
You are wrong about David Kelly - Hutton had no statutory powers - he did NOT hear evidence under oath - he could not prove anything let alone suicide - suicide MUST be proven to a criminal level of proof in order to reach a suicide verdict. The British public and the world have been misled. Please e-mail me if you have any questions.
zeuszeus00
In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.
The article ban (remedy 1) for Fys ( talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom ( talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee FloNight 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've brought up this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan, which you had previously commented on a batch of Manchester councillors including Mr Chohan. I think he is one of the least notable entries. Perhaps you feel like commenting? JASpencer 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you made a disambiguation page for Ian White because of some clever vandalism. Ian White (licensing agent) appears to be a joke. See [ [1]]. Ian White (ice hockey player) appears to be about the same person as Ian White (licensing agent) was before the dab. I think it will need an admin to move Ian White (ice hockey player) back to Ian White. Do you have time to deal with it? I can get to it sometime this week, but not right now. Ingrid 13:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Unfortunately, if there is something we have in abundance, it's Tony's uncivil remarks... :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't have the Rosebery book do you by any chance, I borrowed it from a friend, but only skimmed it and then (unusually for me dutifully) returned it - the page numbers would be helpful for the denial. I'm undecided personally over whether he was gay or not. When I was younger I was told quite a few first hand (horse's mouth)reccolections of him which suggest he was just generally rather odd, if not barking mad! Pity though it's all own research, otherwise the page could be a lot more colourful! Nothing changes in politics really does it?..... Giano 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
I admit I'm a bit baffled by this. What were you thinking of?
William M. Connolley 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)The question is what were you thinking of, since I manifestly did not break the 3RR. Why did you not check my edits before blocking me? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Unblocked (for reasons explained elsewhere). Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted back and left talk notes. If you have an argument that makes sense, I'd be curious. I did scan the talk and it was ass-backwards: no one needs to prove why "The Sun" should redirect to the Sun; people need to prove why a parochial use should override the stunningly obvious redirect to the ball of hydrogen and helium most every living human being sees every day. "What links here" is not a useful proxy in this regard, as I say in the second note—people don't dab the Sun because of how obvious it is. Because I was overriding the talk discussion I invoked WP:IAR and I'll invoke it again because I'll defend this point. Marskell 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
A few months ago you mentioned that this article contained major inaccuracies. Would you be able to help correct some of them, or give me some guidance on what they are? thanks, Warofdreams talk 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
How come he's not a right hon? Halbared 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly Fys, that was very informative. Halbared 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
They're normally used here, especially with multiple post-nominals. I don't believe there is a policy mandating their use, but it seems to be assumed in most places (all the examples with post-nominals in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), for instance, use commas). And though I don't disagree that "John Smith MP" is no less aesthetically pleasing than "John Smith, MP", when more than one is involved it can look horrid without commas ( Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener would look silly if it had "KG KP GCB OM GCSI GCMG GCIE ADC PC" as a string of undivided abbreviations). And, in my opinion, it's logical: Ted Heath wasn't "Sir Edward Heath Knight of the Garter", he was "Sir Edward Heath, Knight of the Garter". Proteus (Talk) 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can you add sources to these images: Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg, Image:Fordstrikers.jpg, Image:Outofpetrol1979.jpg and Image:Armyambulances79.jpg.
Thanks. Edward 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As requested, I've renamed you as User:Fys. You should now move your userpages. I also suggest recreating your previous name and requesting that it is blocked, to prevent impersonation. Warofdreams talk 04:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Before you continue to perform copy-paste moves, could you please use the Move tab at the top of the page to facilitate your username change so the histories are preserved? Ryūlóng 08:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, and I've reverted this.
I'd be all for a centralised discussion on the Manchester councillors although last time this was tried ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester councillors) no concensus could be reached as some councillors were notable, some may be and some weren't. I put in an AFD vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan which came to deletion and I've since put a number of Manchester Councillors on to the merge discussions where there only claim to notability is being a councillor. WP:BIO now states "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability."
There is presently an AfD going on with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraz Bhatti as to whether a parliamentary candidate has sufficient inherent notability which you may want to join. JASpencer 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As you were interested last time, I've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Populist Party (UK). JASpencer 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the POV suspicions that are likely to fly if this idea gets off the ground. However, I think I have made it very obvious on the page that I am a Wikipedian first and a Conservative second and that any possible POV that may be inadvertently added to an article would be immediately ironed out by any peer review or GA or FA nomination. I therefore am not terribly worried, and any editor who thinks such a thing has not read my aims and is assuming bad faith. If you would be willing to act as a NPOV checker for any articles the project works on, I would be delighted to have you on board. Dev920 ( Tory?) 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks! There are plenty more where that came from. Old Queen Street (site of the new Labour HQ), Horse Guards Road, Great George Street... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not positive that I can be added to the list for a month or two. ArbCom simply gave everyone probation, right or not. However, I did get blocked under probation (but it was interpretive, and the admin may have been biased). I did start WP:SRNC to end the dispute though, and since it mostly went my way I wouldn't mass move pages away from what I want, right? Also, my being an admin, having a good reputation, and all... -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It certainly stands to reason that Gerry Studds might be a descendant of Elbridge Gerry, especially since Gerry was also one of Studds's father's given names, but is there any documentation of this descent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbkelley ( talk • contribs)
As I understand it the county is Londonderry and the town is Derry in wiki Weggie 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Fys, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, — Khoi khoi 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. First of all I've understood your motive, but you have gone the wrong way. I think I do not have to explain the normal procedures to you in such a case. :-) By the way there were different various discussions to that topic: Talk:Glenys Kinnock#Baroness, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage#Baroness vs. Lady and someplace, I forgot. Greetings Phoe 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fys. I've noted your exchange with Screensaver, and would be interested to know if you would like to participate to a WikiProject Zambia, in an attempt to expand the treatment on wikipedia of the country. Screensaver is willing, what's your opinion on the idea?-- Aldux 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! -- Elonka 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to tnank you for expressing your intrest in joining my wikiproject on british criime. Please can you advertise the project top as many intrested people as possible so we can this off the ground.-- Lucy-marie 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you nominated the Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) article for a split betwen that and St George Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency).
Would I be right in thinking that this was a mistake, and that you meant to propose a merge to St George's Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency)? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for digging out all those news reports in support of retaining the Piers Gaveston entry. The grounds for deletion strike me as muddleheaded and chippy, but I was sure glad not to have to format the LexisNexis entries. Cheers Robma Robma 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
Hmm, the plot thickens. Well, there aren't many definitive conclusions to be drawn from User:WylEr's list of contributions. Hopefully this will just blow over. FreplySpang 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hu Fys, please rejoin the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square rather than going ahead with and doing a split which it appeas that only you support. Please also be aware of WP:3RR. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fys, as you will see, I have edited the WsG article to include what I believe to be the information you supplied on both the 1885-1918 ST.GHS bounaries and the 1918-19150 boundaries.
Trying to piece things together from disparate version of several articls has been a little difficult may have led to errors. I am reasonably happy that I have accurately reproduced your text on the 1918-1950 boundaries, but I'am concerned that the text on the 1885-1918 boundaries may not be as you intended.
This information is both valuable to the reader (it's great that you have been able to bring forward so much of it) and it is also crucial in helping inform the discussions about wherher the WSG and StGHS should be combined in one article.
If I have gotten any of it wrong, would you be kind enough to leave a note below with corrected text, or at least an indication of the errors?
Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Fys, please don't resume these unilateral edits; please, as repeatedly requested, discuss these contested changes first at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square.
I have lodged an ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fys_breaching_probation.2C_breaking_article_ban.2C_edit_warring_again -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this edit by you. However, I do not see any instance wherein the user has attacked you personally on wikipedia. For this reason, I have removed your edits from the user's talk page. If you have an issue with a particular user, please report it at WP:AN/I. Please be adviced that placing bogus warnings is bad wikiquette, and such continued activity could earn you a block. Thank you. -- thunderboltz (Deepu) 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have temporarily blocked you for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I got your email. Given past experience, I prefer that any discussions between us take place on the Wiki. I have noted my block on ANI, and invite review. Tom Harrison Talk 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You say Nearly-headless Nick told you to fuck off, and "I trust you regard this as unacceptable behaviour in an admin." I regard lots of things as bad, and a few as disruption that needs to be stopped by blocking. I also take into account past records of contributions. I concluded your incivility had become disruptive to the point that a block was needed to stop it. If I had no reason to think any further disruption would occur, there would be no need for you to be blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus supporting your absurd belief that "St George, Hanover Square" is the same as "Westminster, St George's". Your claim that my edits were against consensus is spurious nonsense. If you had read my edit of 11 October correctly you would have known what a ridiculous position you were adopting.
I neither broke the three revert rule nor the terms of the article band, as you ought to have known. Nor could my edits creating a separate article on St Geo HS be regarded in any sense as "vandalism" and you were only being provocative in so describing them.
So long as you regard this as a disciplinary issue I will continue to make a fuss. You give me no reason not to. I no longer really care for any of it. If you had read my edit of 11 October correctly you would never have got into it. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally you miss the significance of a borough constituency being a single undivided Parliamentary borough and being a division of a two-member borough. St George, Hanover Square was a single undivided borough, but St George's was merely one of two divisions of the Parliamentary Borough of Westminster. Since 1950 this has been solely a matter of naming, but in our period here it meant significantly more. Voters could only qualify for a single vote based on the residential franchise, but could qualify under the business premises vote and other ownership franchises for as many votes as they they owned the property for. However, they could only vote once in one Parliamentary Borough. Therefore there was a fundamental difference to business owners in 1918 if they happened to own premises that were in St Geo HS before and Westminster St George's after the boundary change and also owned premises in the old Strand division or in Westminster: before 1918 they could vote in both, after 1918 they could not. There was also a complicated legal technicality which made a difference between voters moving between divisions of a Parliamentary Borough, and those moving from one Parliamentary Borough to another. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 11:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Fys, thanks very much for the really useful detailed info you gave on the chnages. As I have written at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Case_for_split_seems_to_be_proven, I think that you have now clearly proven the case for splitting into two articles. It would be a good idea to see if other editors agree, but your latest data has persuaded me.
Thanks again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In Irish (an teanga O mo Tír) the word Fios (Pron. Fis) means knowledge, or to know, the most popular example being "Níl fhios agam" (I don't know) or Tá Fios agam (I do know). Just thought I'd share. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your enquiry on my talk page though I found it a bit strange to say the least. The The Daily Telegraph reported on 14 March 2005 [4] that Humphrey had talked about his holiday and his plans for the future. I don't think its important, as you seem to suggest, whether he wrote the statement or whether a civil servant wrote it faithfully and issued it on his behalf. However, I'll amend the article to clear-up any confusion. I don't know why you suggest it would be extraordinary to find he had become the first cat to learn English; as though learning a different language would have been easier. Tom 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The South African government !!!!!!!!!!! All the stress I have been put through appears to be down to people not even bothering to read the whole sentence. 82.18.125.110 12:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fys, I have seen you had moved the baron to his normally known name, however, if we use both Christian names, we then should not better let the title away (as in the cases of James Hutchison Hoy and John Fletcher Moulton)? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 17:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ~~
Please vote again to keep the James Patrick Holding article. ken 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Thanks for uploading Image:Charleslatham.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Your article ban from Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all redirects to it has expired. It looks like you've been civilly discussing the matter with other editors, which is great. Please keep it up, and hopefully this ugly matter will all be a thing of the past. Happy editing! -- Slowking Man 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I've been writing an article on Labour MP William Crawford Anderson. Stanton and Lees describe him as having been "Chairman of the National Labour Party" in 1914-15. Spartacus also mentions the post. Presumably this is a separate role to Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I wondered if you could shed any light on it? thanks, Warofdreams talk 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! | |
---|---|
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation. | |
Georgewilliamherbert 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
Please stop adding "helpful" comments at WP:3RR. This is not a page for general users to add their opinions William M. Connolley 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is why having you changing the rules [5] is not acceptable. Please give up you 1-man anti-3RR campaign. I've given you 3 hours to think about it William M. Connolley 12:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's only a short block, just wait it out. And afterwards, make sure any contributions you make to 3RR don't look like admin decisions. Put Opinion: at the beginning, or something. If you don't, it looks like you're impersonating an admin which could easily result in a longer block. -- Tango 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved admin, I have reviewed it, and I've explained my reasoning. As warned, I'm now extending your block to 24 hours and protecting this page to stop you wasting more admin time. Wait for the end of the block, and if you have a real problem with it, go through the appropriate complaints procedures. -- Tango 12:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As Fys's talk page is now protected I'll post here. I've been watching these antics [6] going on for an hour or so, it seems to me this is pointless behaviour by admins. What possible good is going to come of this. Fys is a respected (albeit opinionated) editor, not some little twerp who has contributed nothing of value to the encyclopedia. To now protect his talk page seems rather petty and spiteful - just unblock him , unprotect his page - who here is trying to prove what to whom? I wonder Giano 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Following Giano's objection and a brief discussion on my talk page with another admin, I've decided to let you have one last chance at giving a reasoned appeal, and I'll let another admin be the one to make the final decision. I very much doubt it will make any difference, but I'll do it anyway for the sake of a quiet life. -- Tango 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what could be more blatant an example of a wrongly-applied block. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Unblocked. Ridiculous. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-- GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Wasn't that quite timely. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In the future I strongly suggest that when you make edits to the 3RR page if you do so please make very clear that you are not acting as an admin. That should significantly reduce the associated problems. JoshuaZ 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You commented here on a posting I made today to WP:AN/3RR, and I must say you confused me into thinking you were a commenting admin. -- MichaelMaggs 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:RuthKelly.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.
Hi, I've managed to find a free image of Ruth Kelly so I don't think we need to keep (or can justify keeping under Wikipedia rules) the one you kindly uploaded. WJBscribe 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comments about acting as duty solicitor on 3RR, have you heard of WP:AMA? You might be interested in joining it. -- Tango 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw you said you'd ask all nominees the same questions, so I've pre-emptively answered them. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Will Beback#Questions from Fys. Cheers, - Will Beback · † · 08:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed a section that contained inaccurate information, and links to a libellous web site. This is not vandalism at all. The person's web site whos link I removed is a vandal and a hacker and was arrested for hacking last year, so should not be promoted in any way on this site, which is the home of factual information not lies and self promotion.
You reverting my changes may be vandalism though.
Keep in touch. Detox.
No. you miss the point entirely Tim. IT's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to allow self promotion of this sort. You are Tim Ireland and you are abusing the system. You will be reported and the site will be changed. What happened to Miltox anyways? Regards Detox
Tim this will have to go to mediation now. You have broken the 3RR. You don't seem willing to negotiate and discuss the matter. REgards Detox
Hi, please try not to use summaries that are clearly incorrect in the future, especially when creating pages. I have seen that sort of edit summary many times before; without exception the articles were vandalism. Thanks – Gurch 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking I don't regard new, seemingly random, pages that redirect with sarcastic edit summaries very highly. I apologize that I didn't further look into the issue, but it seemed pretty out of the ordinary. For the record, I did look at the page, but not closely enough apparently. Regards -- dhp1080 ( u· t· c) 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Tim Collins wrote an authorative 700 page book, The Irish Hunger Strikes which also mentioned the Speakers decision not to include the family in his announcement, the book also makes a considerable reference to the reason why terrorusts should not be included, It was part of history and notable so it should be in if either side want it Mark us street Dec5th
At Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Category:Fellows of Queen's College, Oxford you said:
No objection to the renaming, but when are you Oxonians going to get round to changing all your categories to say "Alumni of Foo College, Oxford"? Fys.
There's now a nomination to change them all at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 4#Alumni of the University of Oxford. Timrollpickering 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
All right, I have to know. What about his answer to my third question was so bad? It seemed fairly innocuous to me. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I just saw your vote. Thanks for the feedback.
I feel it is up to the community to decide if this is a good policy or not. I will not have a bigger say so in making policy if I have a seat on ArbCom. The community makes the policy. Currently the policy is not official and still being discussed. Would be great for you to put your comments on the policy talk page.
Does this answer your concern? If so, I appreciate you reconsidering your vote. If not, how can I reassure you and gain your trust? -- FloNight 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fys - thanks for the excellent addition to Georgia's 5th congressional district. Would you be willing to share your source for that info? I've looked arond for a concise listing just like that. Cheers. -- Roswell native 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
David. There seems to be some technical problem with this file. Would you be kind enough to check it out and see if you can sort it?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have read your comments on my Talk and am not interested. Guy ( Help!) 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Fys, please would you help me get Scottish Borders to featured article status?? I see you actively edit UK-related articles, which is good - I do a lot of that too. It's already at peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Scottish Borders/archive1 - all comments appreciated.
I'm not concerned about your past history with regards to things like 3RR or anything like that - it is the past, and you're a good editor, so don't worry! Any help you can give me with regard to British articles is always accepted.
Thanks, -- SunStar Net talk 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, do us all a favor and just stop baiting JzG into making comments as he did. Both of you are on the edge of WP:NPA with what I removed from ANI, but I needn't have to remind either of you of that as you were once an admin, and JzG currently is.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 09:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have read your comments (and noted the extreme irony), but am not interested in further discourse with you on the subject. Guy ( Help!) 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If that applied to me you might have had a point. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been of the opinion that the 3RR, more specifically the way it is interpreted (which makes it practically meaningless) is damaging to Wikipedia, long before I had the misfortune to encounter you. See contribution to mailing list in (I think) October. I notice you don't mention you comprehensively lost the argument on the subject under debate. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't give you the pleasure. For my part I find it objectionable of you constantly to bring up the ArbCom case as evidence of POV when it was no such thing. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between having strong views that an article should endorse a point of view, and having strong views that the article should contain some neutrally phrased information because it makes it a better article. The latter I have; the former, never. Nor do you seem able to realise the reason why I no longer feel compelled to behave: I don't have any reason to. When I did have reason to, I did behave. But since you're going to attack me for misbehaving anyway, I may as well stretch the boundaries and see what I can get away with. Meanwhile, I should say that ATren is correct to say that when you treat people like trolls, you turn constructive editors into trolls. It's tragic but it's true. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is John Gwynne the father of Andrew Gwynne? I remember hearing something about this just after the 2005 election on Sky Sports. If true then it is perhaps worth adding to their respective pages. -- Phildav76 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The Society Barnstar | ||
With thanks for your numerous contributions. Timrollpickering 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
Re: [7]
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Ian Cairns 04:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Birkett.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Williewhitelaw.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NMajdan• talk 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
One of those MPs whose left confusion as to what party he was or wasn't! Your thoughts would be appreciated at Talk:William Craven-Ellis#Party?. Timrollpickering 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
May be coming up for AfD yet again; check the talk page. You commented on the last vote, so I thought I'd mention it, in case you're still interested. - DavidWBrooks 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added an infobox, though seeing as you've posted on the talk page could you expand it with what you know? Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't people names. It's not nice. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Despite continuing warnings, you have continued being uncivil to other editors. You are hereby blocked for 31 hours. As an ex-admin you really should know a lot better. Viridae Talk 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To notify you that I have had no choice but complain about your incivility on the Paul Staines talk page here. DWaterson 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
David, you are being discussed. I realize that perhaps a lot of what's going on stems from the rather raw deal you got before ArbCom but I wish you'd settle down a bit more and be more civil. Based upon what I know of you from before the ArbCom decision, Wikipedia would be worse off without you. Cheers. ( → Netscott) 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at that thread, I have an offer for you. Viridae Talk 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
But since you're on GMT, it's "Good afternoon." I noticed your remarks about JzG and would like to discuss this individual with you. Please e-mail me at "deanhinnen at yahoo dot com" since I feel we have much to talk about. Thank you. Dino 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Fys. As a prominent contributor to Anne Milton, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Anne Milton, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Catchpole 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Catchpole 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mheseltine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! -- Ozgod 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kateadie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood Rexparry sydney's intent - he only wants to move the "History of Southern Rhodesia" section from the Rhodesia article to the Southern Rhodesia article, rather than merging the two articles. I have to say that I also misinterpreted it to begin with! Number 57 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh David, can't you guys just avoid each other say for the next 12 months or so? ( → Netscott) 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hutchesontownc.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈ talk 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed revising the WP:TFA/R process. After the recent rejection of my proposal, I researched Old FAs. You were the nominator of an article that was promoted to WP:FA before 2005, and you continue to be an active wikipedian. Your article has not yet been featured on the main page as a WP:TFA. I am wondering if you have ever made an active effort to get it featured and if you are aware of the new TFA/R procedure, which requires an active request. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Re the sad demise of your nice Druscilla Cotterill article (still in the history of the redirect). I couldn't help noticing that another future small-footnote-in-history, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, is receiving quite different treatment. I also note that the Druscilla Cotterill content was not copied anywhere, as suggested by the AfD, by the person who closed and implemented the AfD. All very sad. Rwendland 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You are completely right, of course. My bad. I don't know what I was thinking... That's what comes of being bored at work. Thanks and apologies! Peeper 08:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have looked with great interest over these articles. The sources that have provided the electoral results, I'm guessing, are not easily available, and you are lucky to be privy to them, yes? Are there are any sources that would provide these results, and able to be obtained without a large amount of effort? Thank you, michael talk 12:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding references to Mark Judge. Davidwr 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you have written extensively on Rhodesian general elections. I am quite awed by the level of detail you give. :)
1. Where do you get your sources from? (I am looking for more sources.)
2. Do you have any suggestions for good articles, books etc that describe both internal white politics, internal black politics and relations between the two sides in Rhodesia up till 1979 in a coherent manor. I am currently expanding and have been rewriting the history of Zimbabwe and would love to get some more sources for better perspective.
3. What was the economy like from 1945 to 1979. I have found some sources and information on this but I want more detail.
4. What would you say are the big picture - long term - causes of Zimbabwe's economic decline since 1980?
Thanks for any insight you can give.
Custodiet ipsos custodes 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Bkell ( talk) 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Calling me an "idiot" and telling me to "go away" because I disagree on the validity of a template is uncivil and inappropriate. This dispute is silly. I will cite the content. In the future please make an effort to cite specific pages rather than listing relevant books. Perspicacite 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg, by
Strangerer, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}}
to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate
Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on
the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --
Android Mouse Bot 2 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the
WikiCookie to the great
Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the
drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.
Hey, Mangwanani started a Zimbabwe WikiProject. If you are interested, please join us. Perspicacite 17:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Fys, and welcome to
WikiProject We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to Zimbabwe. Here are some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. |
The current Zimbabwe WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight is Not applicable! | ||
Please read the nomination text and help improve the article to featured article standard if you can. |
Mangwanani 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, if The Times said it, it must be true - in the words of Thierry Henry, I don't make the rules... I would have thought it obvious that I had simply happened upon my username whilst casting about for a pseudonym for use in pratting about on wikipedia. Except of course, I have subtly altered the brand name to create a rude and mildy amusing malapropism. Do you see it? Barry(off Eastenders) 17:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Just dont, SqueakBox 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin, as is Luna Santin, who also reverted it off Guy's page. If you violate WP:NPA or WP:HARASS further you will be blocked to prevent ongoing abuse.
Just stop it, please.
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
To those warning Fys: that's far from an attack. Maybe it's not the most civil thing to say, but it's not an attack. There's no point in warring over it.
To Fys: let it go. He's left the project, and though I can't say I particularly miss him (I had epic battles with Guy), the fact is that there's no need for you to express that sentiment on his talk page. He's gone; let bygones be bygones, wish him well and move on. ATren 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO it was the reverting the removal that made it an attack, some of us (even we who aint admins) actually like Guy, SqueakBox 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Look who's talking!!!! ....here's ATren 2/2/06: "So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that f*cking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is." Somebody explain why ATren is allowed to "edit" Wikipedia?.... Avidor 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chrischataway.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi
You are wrong about David Kelly - Hutton had no statutory powers - he did NOT hear evidence under oath - he could not prove anything let alone suicide - suicide MUST be proven to a criminal level of proof in order to reach a suicide verdict. The British public and the world have been misled. Please e-mail me if you have any questions.
zeuszeus00