User talk:Tagishsimon/C6

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Thank you for all your copy-editing. After a couple of hours wiki-linking the DNB, I am no longer capable of seeing straight. 45ossington (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww, spoilsport! Quite rightly removed but it has been amusing Aucklanders for the last few days. Mhicaoidh (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone got here first -- anyway I left a note on the talk page because it gave a good illustration of an antique facade with nothing behind it, so if it could "stand in" for a lacking real PV, could it just illustrate the point? I thought the contrast with the worksite was pretty cool too. pleez pleez Tagishsimon? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the dubious nature ... however we should not pretend that we are doing anything wrong. I think we should trim it off but its important to note that we are working legally and know it. Victuallers (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it upon myself to fiddle with some headings etc., but please do feel free to revert if you think the effect unhelpful. With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salathiel Lovell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some thoughts on this to my userpage, if you're interested. Keep up the good work :) Dsp13 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that WikiMapia is using your two images of the Brown Dog statue. They were uploaded by an unregistered user and there is no attribution or mention of GFDL. Is this intentional? --Para (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, somehow I anticipated that. You could just try a friendly normal message to the listed email. There's no reason for User:Alexandre Koriakine to get difficult with removing clear cut copyright violations that are easy to verify, without needing to enforce US law on the hosting yet. If he does though, a Russian site that uses bits and pieces of some terms and conditions template is unlikely to start assessing the validity of a signature in normal text format when there's no clear legal definition for it. And yes, it's a shame indeed to see the original contributor of an article abandon his work, but no worries, with the ongoing geo project to put all such linked Wikipedia articles through the same treatment, the disputes will be settled eventually when these kinds of articles are but a lone unjustifiable aberration. --Para (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tagishsimon, you are wrong. The ADL has stated recently that the number of internet activity has increased among white pride groups and that membership of white pride has increase 50% since 2000.Kevin j (talk)

And the connection between that, and adding unsourced information to articles is? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My statements were backed by a reliable source too, UAW's ACTIVIST HALL OF FAME. You NEED TO CHECK THINGS BETTER. Me, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THE MOVEMENT TOO LIGHTLY.Kevin j (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they were not. Another user meticulously checked your sources, and they did not say what you were saying. Nor, even were they sourced, were they necessary appropriate and needed. And finally, you have not made any case whatsoever that the internet activities of white pride groups necessitate the addition of the information you sought to add. In other news, typing in capitals is no substitute for reasoned debate. Suggest you type in sentence case and try to make a point that goes some way beyond "I'm right & you're wrong". (And did you mean subtle?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not seeing things from a neutral perspective sir. YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ MY SOURCE AND ARE JUST BELIEVING ANOTHER PERSON'S OPINION. HE DID NOT CHECK MY SOURCE THOUROUGHLY, AND YOU NEED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS FOR YOURSELF.Kevin j (talk)

Well, that's true. I am believing the chappie who reverted you, based on him citing text from the source and comparing it with your input. Did he commit some dishonesty in doing this. You, for your part, appear to be ducking every issue I've raised, which renders this communication fairly barren. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, YOU ARE STILL BEING SUBTLE. YOU ARE NOT COMPARING ANYTHING TO ANYTHING, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T READ MY SOURCE. THAT IS NOT RESPECTING THE GOOD FAITH POLICY OF WIKIPEIDA. I urge you too PLEASE RESPECT MY FACTSKevin j (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had a look at some of your other work - and sources, for instance at Race and Crime. Not impressed. Even where your source is good, you show bad judgment in choosing what to add; and your written english skills leave a very great deal to be desired. Moreover, I've strongly hinted that typing in caps makes you look like a fool. Why do you continue to do so?

The bottom line is this: life is too short to dedicate much more of it to you. You give repeated evidence of having an over-inflated sense of your own rightness and consistently refuse to listen to the merest suggestion that you might not be right. I suggest we agree to differ and leave it at that. I will, meanwhile, revert your edits whenever I think they devalue the encyclopedia. --18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider weighing in with your experience and thoughtful opinions here: Wikipedia talk:Etiquette#A gamesmanship of inoculation? Thanks. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This would especially be with regard any clarifications, refinements, or suggestions that come to your mind as to wording. — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SIMON, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

Thank you very much for your note on my talk page. Even tough i am an anonymous user, i try my best and am not set to "get anyone" deliberately. Still, i believe this user (PARARUBBAS) was not contributing with anything positive and this blocking was more than justified.

Have a nice weekend, from Portugal, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SIMON, VASCO here,

Yes man, i know you did not write to criticize me, all the contrary, i appreciated it sincerely, it was just i felt kind of strange with the whole situation but, like i said in our first WIKI-conversation, blocking in this case was MORE THAN JUSTIFIED.

Cheers again, nice work and WEEKEND, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SIMON, VASCO here,

I just saw that PARARUBBAS has returned from his 24hr blocking and...Guess what? He came back doing the SAME! I give up, since i don't know how to (and IF i can, given i am anonymous user) block him myself...

The language issue is pretty much clear in my view. He has to be Portuguese, since his edits are 99,999999% of footballers of that country or working in that league. His english is appalling, as confirmed by this edit on JOÃO ALVES (PORTUGUESE FOOTBALLER): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Alves&diff=225234333&oldid=224806307

I have left another warning in Portuguese in his talk page...I can clearly see him saying: "Talk to the hand..." What a pity...

Greetings, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SIMON, VASCO again, i guess the beast is awake...

Just to let you know this: Mere minutes after i left PARARUBBAS a message (not very polite i admit it, but it's really getting ANNOYING) on his talk page, he proceeded to enter JOÃO ALVES' article (and i notice that he VERY SELDOM enters same article TWICE, sometimes making 4,5 edits for all in one turn) and clicked "UNDO", removing my work, and reinstating his "marvel".

I give up (on this), and am also considering seriously giving up (on WP, what's the point). Even if he gets blocked, maybe he can enter with another IP and do it all again and, even if he can't, THOUSANDS of other PARARUBBAS are lurking...What a shame!!!

I'll wiki-see you, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SIMON, VASCO here again,

Upon writing to WP:ANI about PARARUBBAS, former admin SCEPTRE replied to me, telling me and THE VANDAL to both COOL IT, so...

After 1 year and 9 months (approximately) of ALWAYS TRYING TO HELP AND IMPROVE, without an account (anonymous yes, nothing to hide), i am officially leaving WP (at least as editor), tired of being told to "Cool it", "Your edits constitute vandalism", "Please stop adding defamatory info" (having done NOTHING OF THE SORT), one guy even told me to "Fuck off" if i disagreed with him (user 202.75.80.182)...Oh well...

PARARUBBAS (and other vandals), vandalize away, no more worries with me from now on, i will "cool it"...Permanently. I will leave him a message in Portuguese (i will not insult him, i promise) telling i am leaving, he can do what the hell he wants. Block him, cool, don't block him cool too.

Happy life/wiki-work to the good, the VANDALS you know what i think of you... VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SIMON, VASCO here,

Although i am still quite focused on leaving, this doubt has just surfaced my mind: When you consult an article's edit history, you can clearly see that some usernames are highlighted in red, as opposed to the habitual blue, and others have the icon "talk" in the same fashion. For instance, i am anonymous user, but all my options are "in blue", whereas PARARUBBAS' account name is in red.

Can you please explain to me that difference in colours? That could explain his silence, not his vandalism and removals.

Cheers, mate, from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article McDonald Clarke, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 05:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SIMON, VASCO here,

Just to let you know: PARARUBBAS returned, and he is doing the same!!!! Permanent block anyone?

Always nice to wiki-see you,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sense of humor is fine. Your post added very little to the topic and contained no trace of humor whatsoever. --LarryMac | Talk 19:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was reading the ref-desk talk page and I noticed this edit (that I had not seen before) [1] It looks like you have posted two messages at the same time and one is from a User:Lewis.. ? Do you have any idea what is happening here ??

I'd definately appreciate it if you can point me in the right direction - this has totally mistified me. Thanks for your time.87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - it seems the previos edit was oversighted see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#What happened here - oversight?. Problem now resolved. Sorry for bothering you.87.102.86.73 (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you previously nominated Tarck bike for deletion. Although that discussion ultimately led to a decision to merge the article, the merge tag was removed and the article remains. I've therefore nominated the article for deletion and figured you might be interested. --Gerta (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reinstating the link. I should have read the guidelines before editing the article and will follow the same procedure in the future. Best regards Morganlibrary (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I have flipped the pix... Mark Sublette (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problem on the minor edit issue: it is only recently I've started doing major edits. --Marianian (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

HI SIMON, VASCO here,

User BANRAY reverted an edit on PREDRAG JOKANOVIC (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predrag_Jokanovi%C4%87&diff=227011257&oldid=219503493) by user 92.5.9.102, and i will only say this: this user removed the EXTERNAL LINK, he glued sentences, and his "new contributions" so far consist also of PORTUGUESE FOOTBALL. My guess(es)? He could very well be PARARUBBAS, with a different account, or as a sockpuppet or whatever...BEWARE!!!

I'll catch you later,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Northern Line carriage - internal - night - London - 240404.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Northern Line carriage - internal - night - London - 240404.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Northern Line carriage - internal - night - London - 240404.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no... Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd just like to thank you for being calm and for realising that my tagging of the page was in no way an attack. I couldn't find a link to the copyright notice, which was incorrectly worded anyway. This has now been fixed and I thank you for you help and understanding. Verbal chat 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to take the reference desk questions at face value, but, as they say, while I was born at night, it wasn't last night. Normally I'd leave an obvious eejit alone, but that purported dad of a 12-year-old seemed to merit something that was neither outrage nor obvious derision. As for the edit comment: a little Easter egg I didn't think anyone would look for. — OtherDave (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

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

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

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

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

Addbot (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The motto of Leeds GS. Translated as "Mother of all kinds of training" by my form master (who was also my Latin master) on my entry to the school in about 1959.

Atmbelg (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is also uncalled for:

Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first.

— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not abusing any person. You are overreacting. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was directed at no one, as an exclamation, like if I said "Jesus christ! Do your own homework!" (unless I was speaking to someone named Jesus). Why are you hounding me for something the poster wouldn't see anyway? Let it go and leave me alone, please. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, there are factual inaccuracies in the previous version of the Canterbury University (of the Syechelles) article which can be proved. A prime example is the untrue statement that the website was the Officila Website of Canterbury University. The edit made balances a previous slant and skew towards the negative which violates Wikipedia principles For example, you cannot mention accreditation, without putting accreditation in context. You cannot mention the ODA, without putting the ODA and Oregon Law in context. As it stands, the article fairly balances positive and negative comment and verifiable proof can and will be sent to Wiki administraters by offline means is this article is vandalised again.

Theuglytruth (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple request, made in good faith. Please try to be civil, or let someone else respond. cygnis insignis 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any cited evidence it's hard to know what you're referring to; but I have not seen any incivility from Simon; an I have examined each of the talk page posts he has made, in the last 24 hours. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit comment was "WTF". I suppose that's what Cygnis is dismayed by. However, against the bogus / tendentious question raised by him, I'm not feeling all that contrite. Civility is a two-way street. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your (unsigned) comment; hope that's OK. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm fine with that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note to Sameboat who is pretty fly but sometimes not quite native in his English. Is the branch template now as you wanted? All this ry templatism is like the Society of Stoneworkers handshakes as far as Jo Public's understanding goes. The rule seems to be BS# (# = nought means 1, otherwise # is 2 to 8) takes # icons with #+1 vertical bars (|) "encasing" the icons (including empties). After the #+1th bar biggish text can be written, after the #+2th small text, and after the #+3th small right-justified text. If two or 3 of the text slots are used a space is automatically put between them. If your use things like Over to put an icon over another then further bars after the #+3th are needed. (As I recall)--SilasW (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is now totally useless:

• Junction station removed
• Line detail removed
• Historic line info - Newcastle and Berwick Line - removed.

The changes made to this template today do not improve it. It has simplified so much to be useless. If you look at my changes, I tidied up the Cornhill Branch connection.

Look at:

• {{Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway}}
• {{Symington, Biggar and Broughton Railway}}
• {{Killin Railway}}
• {{Crieff and Methven Junction Railway}}
• {{Wick and Lybster Railway}}
• {{Carnarvonshire Railway}}
• {{Inverness and Aviemore Direct Railway}}

...and over 50 other templates that follow the same basic layout as the layout that you reverted.

All these have the Historic Line detail, juction stations, use {{RoutemapRoute}} arrows to indicate the connecting line; show the connecting Historic railway companies.

--Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI, I've followed your link to the helpful info about adding coords, but one section of info is missing: somewhere, and I've had problems finding it again, I've seen a useful piece about what precision to use in coordinates. It would be helpful to include that info in the "beginner's guide to adding coordinates", I suggest. Cheers, PamD (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done; with a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision.

ta. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but would be good if you could split the articles requiring co-ordinates up into categories, probably on a county basis, as per that which has been done with the South Yorkshire articles in Category:South Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data. Keith D (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. Keith D (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, belatedly regarding your question on the Kathak talk page -- I've posted a (very short!) reply there. H1es- (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's kind of a tradeoff between usability and verifiability. I'd discussed the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Citing verifable sources, and still never reached a conclusion about which was better. In a perfect wiki, I'd be able to cite to the reference from the coordinates. For now, for Russian Monument (Liechtenstein), I've just built a new "notes" section and put the reference in there. If you've got a better idea, go for it. Travisl (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do otherwise than simply asking me to comment at that page, I will reply here as well.

We have several reasons to include the coords in multiple places: to avoid including the location of a city in its geography section is absurd; to avoid including such basic information as simple coords in the infobox deprives the infobox of important core information; and as the Mapit and Geolinks (and any other similar ones, if there are such) provide external links, it's logical to have them in the ELs as well. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said before that I would be happy to help remove the coordinates, but since it is causing trouble I would rather not get involved. Sorry. If you reach consensus, I'm sure there are plenty of AWBers who would be able to help. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something, or is there a reason you're not speedy deleting the Oklahoma State media articles for copyright infringement? Just curious, thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for follow-up. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Geography Barnstar
		Just wanted to let you know that your excellent coordinates-addition work hasn't gone unnoticed. SpencerT♦C 03:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 23:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you on my talk page: could you please take a look at the locations indicated there, to see whether there's any systematic pattern to the round-off errors (hint: you can click on the page to reveal the underlying high-res coordinates) -- The Anome (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said this in your reply to my question...

I think you've done it. Now be bold and add the source. It's not heavily policed. I confess, having tried it, that I cannot immediately see where it delivers coords from an input such as an address, so you might want to provide that advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for this; but I didn't quite understnd what you meant. Were you telling me to add it as a source myself [and tell how to do it that way]?

Also, about the "I confess, having tried it, that I cannot immediately see where it delivers coords from an input such as an address, so you might want to provide that advice."; now that I look at it closer I agree. You can't type in an address, but you can type in the coordinates and check to see if they are correct. I don't know if this is any help to the project, but it was for me. What are your thoughts? ⊥m93 ^talk. 17:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...it's as well for you to be prepared to make your own amendments to tables such as this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That is what you wrote. Basically what you said was Be BOLD!; right? So basically, make my own ammendments until corrected; correct? ⊥m93 ^talk. 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. ⊥m93 ^talk. 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to my "greatest" poll on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As my contribution was to suggest the poll was misplaced, I'm somewhat surprised by the barnstar. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute with Earle Martin appears to be getting out of hand to me, he is over at Talk:List of eponymous laws now threatening to pull at the administrative tools. If he proceeds with blocking/protecting or any other action against me, would you be willing to potentially certify a request for comment on the issue? Provisional on the RFC content and other issues for sure. I am just not a big fan of bullying. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Issues:

There are four areas of contract law that have to be discussed when considering the issues in this scenario, which are; frustration; duress; and the validity of the exemption clauses. It must be noted that at this point the food poisoning is factor outside of the contract between Donald and Opulent and cannot be any point of claim against Donald. Therefore this discussion will look at the validity of the exclusion clauses and the variation of contract.

Application of the Law to the Issues raised :

Exclusion Clause:

In order for Opulent and Donald to be bound by the exclusion clause there needs to be a valid contract, which means that four requirements have to be fulfilled. A valid contract must have the following elements; offer; acceptance; consideration; capacity; and intention. These are present in this contract when Donald offers his work and Opulent accepts verbally. There is also intention because there is an understanding that Donald will turn up to work on a certain day and Opulent will close the night club, which is evidence of consideration as Opulent is at a disadvantage.

This is a valid contract, however the next area to explore is whether the exclusion clause and standard terms apply because Opulent has never worked with Donald and at the verbal contract point does not indicate what his usual terms and conditions are. Under contract law there are only three ways that they can be incorporated which are; by signature even if they are not read; by notice where there has to be sufficient notice; and by custom where there has been previous dealings between the parties even if the clause is added in later. In this case there is a signature but there is no indication of previous dealings, hence Opulent may not bound by these conditions yet. Therefore one has to consider the case of notice, off hand there is no notice as Donald fully indicates what these conditions and the question is whether the average person would have notice, especially as Donald is an builder and Opulent as a business and these could be construed as standard conditions in the business; but this would be easy to prove as notice was given due to Donald giving these terms and conditions before the contract was agreed and giving a good indication of their nature at this level. In this case the terms were fully expressed but under contract law there could be one problem with the contract if Opulent has received the contract in their hands and failed to read it the case of Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd if the exclusion clause can only be construed in negligence and in certain circumstances then it is applicable and as Opulent received the usual terms and conditions before Donald started the work, i.e. they had a chance to end the contract then they are bound by them. However, the case of White v John Warwick & Co has held that liability for negligence will not normally be excluded. Therefore it is still very confusing whether Donald is excluded from the damages that Opulent is seeking, therefore the statutory provisions of the UCTA and Sale and Supply of Services Act 1982 (SGSA).

Is Donald is liable for the damages that Opulent is asking for? In response there is little evidence in whether the exclusion clauses should be supported or not. Under UCTA Section 2 it holds that negligence cannot be excluded in respect to personal and/or death bat all. In relation to other loss/damage liability cannot be excluded unless there is reasonable notice. Section 11 holds that the reasonable test is that the term is fair and reasonable and whether the individual should have reasonably known or in contemplation of when the contract was made. This is similar to the case law discussion; however it is written from the point that negligence can not be excluded except in strict circumstances. There was no real notice in this case, especially when the verbal contract was made. Therefore it is very likely that this clause will not be upheld as the case of Andrews Bros (Bournemouth) Ltd v Singer and Co Ltd holds that exclusion clauses against the party seeking to rely on them. This is important for the liability in respect to Donald and his employees and any injuries and subsequent economic loss from the negligent wiring. Yet in relation to the damages to Opulent it has to be determined if there is remoteness of damage, whereby monetary compensation can be claimed for a failure to perform a primary obligation as this is a breach and/or the loss for any breach of a secondary obligation. The primary obligation was to construct a hotel to certain specification, which Donald did negligently in respect to the swimming pool as he built it the wrong depth and then gave the wrong depth measurements causing danger for persons using the pool. Therefore it is highly likely that Opulent can claim damages under breach of contract. The secondary obligation was to complete this task by a given date, which he did do but due unforeseen circumstances a variation of the contract occurred and Opulent owes a further $5000 and the question is whether they are liable to pay this to Donald. In respect to the negligence that has caused personal injury to persons the law states that this cannot be excluded under Section 1(2) of the UCTA, therefore it has been shown that Opulent may claim for this. In respect to not paying the $5000 because of the negligence and the loss of profits due to the bad publicity because of the negligence can Opulent claim against it, however does the exception clause apply? Again we must turn to whether there is reasonable notice to exclude liability and under the SGSA Section 16 where restricting liability for breach of implied terms arising from Sections 13-15 is subject to the reasonable test and provisions of the UCTA, where the reasonableness test is based upon the common law officious bystander test that is defined in Sir Law v Southern Foundries Ltd which is a stricter test for exclusion clauses where it has to be so reasonable and that the notice is sufficient that the officious bystander would agree to its terms. This basically holds that there are implied terms such as a reasonable quality of goods and services and that it should be completed in a reasonable quality and should be usable. This means that the exclusion of liability for faulty equipment and liability for faulty work cannot be excluded. This means that these two exclusion clauses cannot be upheld. In respect to the negligent completion of work i.e. was there reasonable excuse for the negligence. Yet it was an express term of the contract and without reasonable excuse this exclusion clause it is possibly not going to be upheld, this is rule from an early common law principle. Yet there is the question whether this is reasonable exclusion for the trade. However, as in the case of Edmund Murray Ltd v BSP International Foundations Ltd it was held that it was not fair and reasonable for the party in breach to rely on an exclusion clause for failing to meet the specifications of the other party. Therefore this again will be subject to the reasonableness test where the test applied to the whole term and to the particular reliance on it. Therefore if it is a specific term of the contract to be finished by the certain date and made clear by Opulent and Donald did this as it was then it is very likely it can be excluded because it is a trade standard. Finally, if one considers the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) if the term does not create an unfair balance in detriment to the consumer it can be upheld. Yet as this does create an unfair balance and puts Opulent at a loss then they will be protected from the exclusion clause as a consumer, even though she is acting for her business. However are the circumstances of this variation sufficient enough for Opulent to claim? If the swimming pool was properly marked the work would have been finished within the time period would variation to the contract be acceptable? Therefore is there a reasonable excuse for the variation and did both Opulent and Donald have equal bargaining power? The first question to ask is whether the circumstances that lead to the variation of the contract would have frustrated the contract, if the variation is perfectly acceptable as long as Opulent was not put under duress to accept the new terms.

Frustration & Duress: Frustration is an act outside the contract that makes it completion impossible, a good example of this is in marine contracts where a delivery is specified for a certain date and time but the crossing is so bad that the delivery cannot be made on time. This would be an example of frustration of that part of the contract and no breach would be held as long as the goods were delivered at the nearest possible time. Frustration of a contract and what it constitutes is usually seen via exclusion clauses, such as advising that liability will not be held for incomplete contracts or damage due to acts of God, nature etc. Other examples of what may frustrate a particular contract may also be present also, i.e. unforeseen acts, third parties etc. in the case of Davis v Fareham illustrated frustration is the last option to be taken.

Frustration occurs whenever the law recognises that without default of either party a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances in which performance is called for would render it a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract. Non haec in foedera veni. It was not this that I promised to do.

It is common practice that just because a contract has become too expensive that it is not frustrated, unless the other party start making unreasonable late and highly expensive variations; whereby a lump sum contract is frustrated so that the contractor can recalculate his lump sum. Also as noted earlier any clause that defines force majeure must comply with the UCTA 1977. The key question is whether the act is completely outside the contractor's control that it is no longer performable. However the court is prepared to give the terms of the contract their widest meaning i.e. the parties' intentions, because what is the point of creating a valid contract and then deciding it is no longer desirables and using a clause that brings about frustration creating an unfair situation for the other party. The Court of Appeal in The Marine Star argued the correct approach was through the actual words used because these exclusionary clauses are restrictive in nature; however the correct is approach still points to one outcome the limited use of force majeure. Frustration can be the physical destruction of the subject matter of the contract, i.e. a fire burns down a concert hall. It can also be due to extraneous circumstances, such as the Guns 'n' Roses Case where the health and safety department declared the stadium unsuitable so the contract was frustrated as the band could not perform. Impracticability is another example of frustration, i.e. the circumstances have changed radically so the contract cannot be performed. The best example of how extreme the circumstances have to be to equate to frustration of contract can be seen in the leading authority of Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd:

A ship was chartered in the November to proceed with all possible despatch, all dangers and accidents of navigation excepted, from Liverpool to Newport to load a cargo for carriage to San Francisco. The ship ran aground on 3 January in Carnavon Bay. She was later refloated by 18 February and taken to Liverpool. The charterers repudiated the contract on 15 February. The question was whether the charterers were liable for not loading the ship, or whether the time likely to be required for repair (the ship was still under repair in August) was so long as to excuse the charterers. On this finding by the jury, the court held that the adventure contemplated by the parties was frustrated and the contract discharged. The contract term, read literally, did cover what had happened, and it would have stopped the charterers from recovering damages in the event of delay, but it was not intended to cover an accident causing injury of so extensive a nature.

The frustration of contracts is highly restricted, therefore a defence or action in frustration of contracted is limited because the key point is a valid contract has been made and the good faith it has been structured upon should be respected; unless a situation so extreme occurs that it is unfair and impossible for the contract to be performed. In this case all the workers got sick creating a situation where Donald could not complete the work in time. It is highly possible as the circumstances were so extreme and unforeseen that Donald and Opulent's contract would have been frustrated. Therefore the extra payment would payable by Opulent and as the term of no right to set off is a standard trade term and Opulent is a business then they would have to pay the money and sue for breach of contract in respect to the negligent work. The final question is whether Opulent was under any duress and of so this variation would not be upheld, i.e. this is a question of equal bargaining power. The question is whether Opulent had no choice but to accept the terms because of the necessity of the finishing date and there was no choice; however the circumstances seem to indicate there was no force or ultimatum given by Donald rather a re-negotiation of the terms due to the unforeseen circumstances of the workers getting ill. Even though there may be some inequality of bargaining power between Donald and Opulent, i.e. the hotel needs to be finished this does not amount to duress in commercial dealings. Therefore it is highly likely that the extra $5000 is an acceptable variation to the contract and Opulent will have to pay because of the standard term in respect to set-off.

Advice to Opulent & Donald: Donald would most likely get his $5000 and can have his clause in respect to set-off upheld; however he will not be able to rely on his exclusion clause in respect to the swimming pool. Opulent would have a cause of negligence action in respect to breach of contract with the respect to the swimming pool and would have to take this action because they are unable to set off the $5000 because of the standard term against set-off.

ref books :

J. Beatson (1998) Anson's Law of Contract 27th Edition, Oxford University Press Buyer (The), 2002, Aspects of Frustration, Buyer 24(12) Groves, 2004, Force Majeure, Bus Ad 2.10 (2) David Kelly, Ann Holmes & Ruth Hayward (2002) Business Law 4th Edition, Cavendish Lunney & Oliphant, 2000, Tort Law: Text & Materials, Oxford Uni Press Ewan McIntyre, (2004) Business Law, Longman Blak thot (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now run my bot over your entries in User:The Anome/npemap.org.uk URLs, and added the coordinates you have given to those articles that were missing geographic coordinates, as lat/long to five decimal places. -- The Anome (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thanks to your help, we've been able to geocode 198 disused stations today. -- The Anome (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a response to the issue of copyright violations on the Philip Goldberg article on the discussion page for Philip Goldberg.

Best regards,

Reservoirhill (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you are not watching the page, since it was one of 51 pages to which you posted similar messages, but you linked the Arizona list of pages with missing coords to the Florida WikiProject talk page. I fixed it, but you may want to check your work and see if you goofed on any of the others. (smile) Horologium (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest with regards to coords tagging when an article doesn't lend itself to being tagged? For example, articles on obsolete congressional districts? Thanks. JodyB _talk 11:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great to talk- no problems. As you know I work with OStoWiki to do Helmert conversions, and with a few clicks on >>Back Convert<< I change coords to OS. >>convert<< then translates them back, giving me many interesting formats. SS 84475 25952 is the ten figure OS Grid reference, which in my days of teaching geography (1973 maybe) in the UK and yomping over the the open fells, was pretty important. It is useful if you have large scale paper maps (6in to the mile +) in County record offices. But yap it please.

I am about to rewrite ostowiki to reduce the clicks, and recognise the fact the it used more often to convert from >>location<< on commons to >>coord<< than its original function- have you suggestions, as to additional features etc.

A second project is to take a txt page, and regex the coordinate pairs and output a page with Grid, Location and Coord. This will take a little longer. Clem

Hey, Tagishsimon. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing or tnulling the template.

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 07:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be obliged if you did not mark as minor edits that clearly are not. It gives rise to suspicion that you're trying to slip things under the radar. Like a quote that's just been excised for copyright reasons, for instance. In the case of the reinsertion of the text, I'm moved to agree that the format of the quote does add to the article, and meshes well with the sentence "Pynchon employs the spelling, grammar, and syntax of an actual late 18th century document,", and so I'm not going to pull it again.

Having studied your edit record, may I ask if you have any WP:COI issues? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no. As I mentioned in a response to one of your previous deletions, I think there are instances (e.g., a pre-publication context) where it's very useful to readers of the encyclopedia to have as much information as is available on a forthcoming text in an easily-accessible manner, which is what the medium and format of Wikipedia afford (or should afford). By removing the relevant text and burying the links in footnotes all you're actually doing is increasing the number of clicks it takes for a reader to get to a piece of information about the subject of the article, thus making Wikipedia far less user-friendly than it might be.

As far as the Mason & Dixon article goes, I hadn't seen it for quite a long time and certainly wasn't one of the main editors who worked on it. I will get to the apparent issues with "tone" which someone has marked and hopefully expand the section, but the reinclusion of the relevant quote was definitely a "minor" one in my opinion.

I haven't "studied" your edit record, but I do think that you tend to get a little bit trigger-happy with your deletions. When people spend time putting work into an article, the last thing they want to see is someone rip their work down and to add insult to injury get all officious and stern about it on the Discussion page. I think that you'll eventually realise that trying to find compromises and looking for ways to achieve conciliation rather than confrontation will work better. Maybe mention what you plan to do first on the Talk page as most interested parties will have that page on their watchlists as well? all the best-- Abaca (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message about Greatstone Dunes railway station and War Department Halt railway station and your search for geodata. I'm sorry I can't help in any detailed way. I used to own a 1980s Ordnance Survey map which clearly marked both locations, but I cannot now find it. I have consulted my current (bang up to date) version, but the disused stations are no longer marked. I have tried several on-line maps tonight, and can pinpoint the approximate location, but I cannot give a 100% accurate reference. I thought I would be able to find Greatstone Dunes station on a satellite image, because there is a WWII pillbox right on the site of the station's "up" platform, but sadly I just cannot quite get enough zoom to be certain which lineside "blob" is the said pillbox. As for War Department Halt, if you can see the collection of concrete "sound dishes" used for pre-radar aircraft early warning detection experiments (south of Romney Sands station), the halt was in the centre of this collection of installations. I have plotted the approximate locations, using old (but less detailed) railway guidebook maps, and my personal knowledge from 6 years working on the staff of this railway - you can view them at this location on Google maps. I'm afraid this is the best I can do. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - no, I don't mind you using my words at all. Thanks for your work on the articles. I note your comment about staffing, and I'll make an entry on the main Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway page in a moment. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 03:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on coordinates but I noticed one or two ended up with leading round brackets instead of squiggly. I have corrected those on my WL. Regards Motmit (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire Street railway station not in fact done? (But huge props to you for all that have have done!) Jheald (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm staggered! I have no memory of ever having anything to do with the Ilkley article and I can't imagine where I got that misinformation from. I even had to check back on the article history to make sure you weren't having me on! Deb (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Ship of Theseus link too - I haven't seen that one before. I think I'm still me, but I'm often unsure. Deb (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the XZ region code, used for objects in/above international waters. Regards, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I draw you attention to Template talk:Coord missing#Region codes - not that I underestimate the good work done via that template, so far. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit — is there any way of labelling the coordinates to state that they apply only to the NLR station and not to the GNR station, which was not in the same place? The article is about both stations. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tagishsimon, you put a notice on the WP:Cornwall talk page requesting coordinates. I've added coords to all 165 articles originally listed. Andy F (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for the latest five...

• Hingston Down, Devon
• Newquay Tretherras School
• Saltash Passage
• St Austell with Fowey
• Whitesand Bay

Andy F (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tagishsimon. Have a great time in Cornwall and season's greetings, Andy F (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a mo...

... could you have a look at this please. Warm regards, Andy F (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to use it more appropriately. Thanks for telling me.--Nubile Servant (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. `'Míkka>t 23:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these intended to be ongoing maintenance categories (categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion), or can they be deleted as soon as they are emptied? - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that answers my question. - Stepheng3 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 07:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for cleaning up Castleton Tower. I was planning to do a couple read throughs but I'm sure I wouldn't have gotten everything you already picked up.--OMCV (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tagishsimon, your file File:York railway station and Royal York Hotel - April 10 2005.jpg has been copied to Commons as Commons:File:York railway station and Royal York Hotel - April 10 2005.jpg, it retains the same license there as it had here, so nothing has changed save that it can now also be used by our sister projects. I usually go on now about the advantages of loading dirctly to Commons and how easy it is, but since you have a TUSC account you probably alreadt know all of this. If you have no objections to a permanant transfer rather than merely a copy, I'll add ncd to the local file. Thanks and a belated happy new year. KTo288 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SIMON, longtime no (wiki)see, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

If you browse through this talkpage archives (nº 13 through 17, 19 and 27), you will see that you "meddled" in a discussion about a disruptive editor, PARARUBBAS. Finally, in December 2008, with priceless help of user BANRAY and user/admin SATORI SON, he was banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pararubbas#Blocked), subsequently creating a new account, PEP10, also banned for unexplained removal of content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pep10#December_2008).

After some weeks of anonymous editing, still as disruptive and with ZERO communicative skills, he has new account, now as PASD08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pasd08) example here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A1bio_Coentr%C3%A3o&diff=262329686&oldid=262233611).

Also immediately reported this to WP/ANI, although i know what their reaction will be (have not been getting much attention from "the main men", maybe because i am anonymous?). However, my conscience tells me to do so.

Take care, wish you all the best, happy new year to you and yours,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He'll always be Fred in this household! :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of an ongoing project; I was requested to help out. It's not perfect, I'm afraid - it's hitting a few things that are stubs in French as well. But most of the commune articles do need expanding, and this is the quickest way to note it.

If you come across an article like that, go ahead and remove the template; as I say, it's not perfect, but it's the best tool I know of at the moment. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I began the tagging, I checked a fair number (at least ten, probably more) of articles against their French counterparts; in each case I found an article that could stand substantial expanding. Perhaps, in French, certain departments have been granted better coverage than others, and it was my ill luck to stumble upon the ones that were better covered, giving me a false sense of the work that needed to be done. But I stand by my initial decision, because it was based on, at the very least, a good-faith effort.

As to the tagging itself, I disagree when you say that it adds nothing; I think it calls people's attention to the fact that a.) there's work on the article to be done, and b.) there's a place from which that information can be drawn. I judge by myself; when I see a stub article, my first instinct is to perform a Google search for expansion, not to check another language Wiki. If that resource is there, I think it is important to call people's attention to it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the tag is placed on an article which has a lot of resourceful content on another wikipedia or highlighting certain external links which can be translated then it is worth it. The tags are intended for articles which have fuller articles on other wikipedias. If people come across a one liner for instance which has some paragraphs of referenced text on another wikipedia then it is worth tagging the article to show what needs to be transwikied. A perfect example of what I intended the tags for was articles like Malsch (bei Wiesloch). Now check the article on German wikipedia and you'll see it definately need transwikiying as do many thousands of others particularly from German, French, Italian, Spanish and Polish. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. As to the former, I've decided on further reflection to a.) not tag any further French commune articles, and b.) not to do this kind of tagging in the future. As I stated, the concerns you raised were concerns that I had considered upon embarking on the project; however, upon doing a little research, and finding in my own sample that the vast majority of articles checked could stand a lot of expanding, I thought it would work. What I have come to find is that the coverage of France in French is not as uniformly in-depth as I had thought, and that the exercise might not work as well as I had expected in the first place. Should I have cottoned on to this sooner? Perhaps; as it happens every time I did a spot check, I came up with a pretty good sampling of articles that could be expanded (consider, for instance, Communes of the Corse-du-Sud department; random sampling turned up a high percentage of expandable articles there, for instance). As to the latter - the use of tags in the first place - I still think they have a great deal of validity. Are they an ideal solution to the problem? No. But for some time I've been trying to think of a better way to do translations than the one already in place. And these tags, while not perhaps ideal, I think offer a better solution to the translation issue than the one which already exists. As you say, though, YMMV.

(I'm responding on your talk page rather than in the other discussion because the good Doctor is getting a little more vehement than I'd like to, and I'd rather stay on the sidelines of that for the moment.) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, now...I've been invited to become a member in good standing of SPECTRE, so you'd best be careful what you say about my boss. It could come back to haunt you (in missile form, no less.)

FWIW? IW a great deal, thanks. :-) The whole translation-tagging thing's a work in progress; I do see its flaws, but would like to make it work better. So - a little more thought is in order, perhaps when I have the time to think more. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safe houses? I laugh at them. Immensely, even. You haven't seen the size of our bunker busters, have you?

Funny you should mention checking against the French by size; the good (?) Doctor suggested something similar this very morning. If I knew code, I'd try and whip something up; as is, I'm relegated to wishing and dreaming. It would be an awfully useful too, though. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would actually frighten me if I paid taxes. (Note to any federal officials watching this: I'm joking.)

I sat in on a bot request process, and I'm not sure I have the patience to do it again. There are three or four I could come up with, actually; I think it's high time we had some more content-generating bots here. But I don't particularly want to go through the process right now.

As to why we do it? Altruism, I s'pose. Leastaways, that's what it feels like sometimes. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! Thanks for moving Bub, and catching "dieing/dying". It was about 3:00 AM when I did that. I knew it didn't look/feel right, but I was too tired to do anything about it. Thanks again.

"It's a terrible thing to spell our name with a capital L. Now somebody will think we are Scottish Lowlanders and not Islanders." ~ Norman Mclean, A River Runs Through It, p.88.

- 4.240.159.99 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd let you know that I've added more stations to User:The Anome/Disused UK railway stations still lacking coordinates as of Nov 2008. Thanks for all your efforts! Kind regards, The Anome (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if you would read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Your concern for an article which is undergoing an AfD appears to have made you overstep the canvassing boundary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the following; and I have read the chart. I would think that my canvassing was limited. I am not being nasty, but can you spell out how this is not appropriate, given the following?

If you intend to canvass

The following guidelines for cross-posting "friendly notices" have wide acceptance among Wikipedians:

   * Be open. Do not make cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages.
   * Be polite. Wikiquette issues are extra-important when a message is likely to be read by many people.
   * Avoid redundancy. Rather than copying the same five-page essay to twenty talk pages, write it once, in the place where it is most relevant, and then link to it.
   * Do not use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away). Also note that running bots without authorization is almost guaranteed to get both your account and the bot account blocked.

There are often better alternatives to canvassing. For example, suppose you've written a new article, and you want people to see it. Simply add links to it from other encyclopedia articles, where it is relevant, and also add it to appropriate categories. This increases the exposure of your article, while simultaneously benefiting the encyclopedia, without the need to directly inform your fellow contributors.

Dogru144 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tageshsimon, thank you for your message and your interceding.

Did you get a chance to look at the quoted passage of Wikipedia:Canvassing? In short, it appears, by the comment, "If you intend to canvass" that a slight amount of canvassing is permissible. How far have I deviated from neutral language in my messages to the past editors of the CfD article? I don't believe that I cited the initiating editor for the CfD when I canvassed (hence, no badmouthing on my part).

I am not trying to be testy or defiant. I'm just looking for your response on these particular issues. (Also, I'm concerned that an editor can erase my communication to an administrator.) Thanks, Dogru144 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I would presume that neutral tone alerting of a small number of people, informing them of the AfD, as opposed to advocacy is permissible. Also, I did not understand your comments to me, with initials in them.Dogru144 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my notices fell under the category of the following from the WP:Canvassing site. (Friendly notices)

No they didn't, since they were not neutral. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the initials. Some were advocating action; some were neutral, such as this, at User talk:Kurieeto:

CfD nomination: Article on 9/11 Health Impacts proposed for deletion

Hi. You had contributed to the editing of the BBC documentary on the Health Fallout of the 9/11 attacks. Someone has set in motion the process to delete the article. Thought you might be interested in preserving the article. Here's the page for discussing the proposal to delete the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout: The Health Impact of 9/11 Dogru144 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Dogru144 (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in a wider response to this. The sentence you quoted is rather weak on the spectrum of advocacy. It directly advocates nothing; it speculates that the reader "might" be interested. The table on the WP page refers to assertive/ aggressive tone. My "might" phrase is hardly strong advocacy. Dogru144 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you say so Theserialcomma (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I do. Get over it, and perhaps try to spend some more time understanding what people are trying to tell you, and a little less time complaining about them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i tried to understand what you just told me, but i somehow found myself complaining about you instead. hope we can help each other again sometime Theserialcomma (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to point you at this query. . I see you were an earlier contributor to the page and wondered if you could help. Thanks, --LeedsTracker (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Superlawyers.com and youtube are not WP:RELIABLE sources. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a visit to the main library, once that's done I should be able to get it to GA without problem. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the list of articles on Citizendium that aren't on Wikipedia (that you created in 2007) compiled automatically? If so, and if it's not too much work on your part, I'd love to see an updated version of it. Citizendium has considerably more articles, and it will be interesting to see what worthwhile things they've written that we still don't have. And given the possibility that the licenses will soon be compatible between the two sites, it also might be a good tool for finding good content to import. Cheers!--ragesoss (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should really examine how you address people and accuse them of bad behavior before you make a comment like this. I am not affiliated with PinDesign in any way. I thought this forum was supposed to be civil and people could disagree or agree in civilized ways. Comments like "How do you live with yourself?" are really not appropriate, are hurtful, and not helpful.--Jameskrouse (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. I replied on my talk page. kilbad (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the co-rodinates you added to the above article. reason. co-ordinatesd were already there in the Bristol template! Your addition overlapped two sets, out of synch, hence the removal. I left a note on teh article talk page.Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tagishsimon, I noticed you (I think) closed a thread at AN/I with "hold a watching brief". May I ask, what is that, and is it something that can be requested? Thank you for your time. — Ched (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm really hoping it doesn't get that far - I'm trying to work things out on my own, and hopefully a 3O can help. Appreciate your time - have a good one. — Ched (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I’m User:CCFSDCA (Christopher Corbett-Fiacco) and I understand the concerns expressed by many of you regarding the articles I’ve posted at Wikipedia the past week or so. I am in fact the author of The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World, as stated (an as-yet unpublished book which is based upon the self-published The Whole World Calendar 2008 [and 2009; email me at [email protected] and I’ll be glad to send you a sample page and info on ordering, if interested]). I have sent Wikipedia its permissions grant for using copyrighted material as requested and assure you that I am not self-promoting. My mistake is in not yet spending the time to figure out exactly how to cite the book as the reference for the article, which I’ll do as soon as I have the time. My intent in adding the articles is that they are actual national/religious/cultural holidays and festivals, are therefore ‘newsworthy’ if not particularly important, and, having spent two years researching the topic, I can assure you that it is quite difficult at times to find such information -- try to find out what Earthquake Victims Memorial Day is in Armenia and you’ll see what I mean. It is my intent to self-publish the book within 6 months if I cannot find a publisher. Meanwhile, feel free to delete my articles as desired. I’ll revisit the subject at a later date and repost them only after I’ve ascertained that I am, in fact, doing it right. Meanwhile, I’m not copying from somebody else -- those articles are my own -- that’s the way I write. Thanks much. CCFSDCA (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Chris Corbett-Fiacco[reply]

On the Wessex_Institute_of_Technology page N-g-Efrat has returned with his attempts to cause problems, a shame considering its been a peaceful page for a while now. Since you helped him and his sock puppets get banned the first time round i was hoping you could keep an eye on him with me. Thanks --Curuxz (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was on my way over here to say the same thing. Hope you can help. Verbal chat 15:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for your help, I do wish they would discuss things the proper way :( --Curuxz (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention of SPAMMING Wikipedia, and I would like to clear this up.

As the creator of a work, I have the right to be identified as the author. I uploaded the image to Wikipedia under the licence that requires I be credited as the author. I have just as much right as any other author, artist, or other creator.

Also, it clearly states in guideline for uploading an image that you should state the website you downloaded in from, which is all I did. If it were a photo of a Ford truck, Ford would have to be identified as the manufacture.

Does this agree with you?

Andrew.

Well, actually Ford wouldn't have to be identified except by choice of hte captioner, i.e. if the product as a Ford product were the topic of htep ictyure. Otherwise you wouldn't have to say "Ford truck in front of Donaghey's store, 1936" if the subject were only Donaghey's store and not Ford trucks. Photo credit isn't normally a problem but you can't do it in such a way as it comes across as self-promotion. Speaking as the author of the Thompson Country article, I'm hoping you might have some pictures of the region itself, as a rafting pic isn't really representative of the country around there, i.e. the rolling sage desert of the Ashcroft-Savona area, or the twisting course of the Thompson. Wikipedia is not meant to be a travel brochure or a career platform. Not scolding you, just explaining, and a reminder that perception of motive is always difficult to ascertain; I've released some of my own photos, and my late father's, into Wikipedia; I don't credit my own, just use {{pd-self}} in both cases, though I do name my father's credit in the caption of any usage I'm aware of, just out of respect. Ditto with historic photographers, famous or not. I encourage you to keep on contributing photos, but read up on GDFL and the full range of wikipedia content/licensing issues and I think you'll appreciate the situation for what it is. And if you have some landscapes of the Thompson Country, please add them to that article. It's as you know primarily ranching country, pictures of ranches would be nice....Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, since User:Ckatz has removed the image as per Andrew's request, I thought it worthwhile to point out the issue I had with the caption as originally provided:

" Thompson River, BC, Canada]]<ref>[[User:AndrewAntaro | Antaro, Andrew]] (1997). "Whitewater Rafting on the Thompson River August 31, 1997", online photo, Source: Downloaded from [http://www.marketingmarksman.com Marketing Marksman] Retrieved on 2009-02-01.</ref>]]"

Maybe linking the contributor's username is OK, and as I said above photo credits are common in Wikipedia. However, targeting "Marketing Marksman" as where it was downloaded from (which is odd, since Mr. Antaro is himself the creator of the image and it need not be routed through a marketing promotions outfit in the first place) constitutes a plug for Marketing Marksman, which has nothing to do with the Thompson Country, whitewater rafting, or anything else. Lately I've noticed a lot of such material intruding into Wikipedia; apparently there are marketing courses/agendas out there teaching people how to exploit Wikipedia to promote themselves or their careers or, in t he case of politicians and politcial parties or corporations, much larger agendas. "Mercenary contributions" can still be welcome but not when they're highlighted, especially with a plug for "Marketing Marksman". In the case of the Thompson Country page, that region - while its lower reaches does have a whitewater industry, that's not all it's known for and mostly it's ranching country; but no rancher I know of uses "Marketing Markskman" to download Photos to Wikipedia from. Sorry to be so critical Adnrew, your pictures were welcome to stay, including "Credit:Andrew Antaro"...if the reason you asked to have them taken out was becaues the plug from Marketing Marksman could not be included, then you've completely misconstrued what Wikipedia is for, and Marketing Marksman should amend their advice (and give you a refund for giving it).Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what the name-connection is; can't tell from your userpage, but what's your connection to the Tagish country/people?Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've realized that many disused stations had been listed as "heritage" stations, so I modified my updater code to do a CatScan for those, too. As a result, User:The Anome/Disused UK railway stations still lacking coordinates has now got lots more entries to code.

You might also want to take a look at User:The Anome/Yet more railway stations to geocode, which was compiled by a different mechanism. I've also started tagging these with {{coord missing}} tags. Thanks for all your efforts to date, and I hope this helps. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, joining my conversation. I try to contribute Wikipedia in other articles.--Bukubku (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that Tagish always has someone who agrees with him in a debate pipe in at just the right moment. How can you live with yourself using such tactics? --Jameskrouse (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello troll. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must warn you that if you further remove valid tags from articles you will be breaking the 3RR rule and will risk being blocked Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove necessary maintenance tags as you did here. If you feel that the templates are "unimportant" please make a case at WP:TFD. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your help in general and specifically in organizing and addressing the copyright issues here. Your willingness to help out is very much appreciated. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq (talk) has given you a plate of poutine, for outstanding speed in the elimination of copyright violations.! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a plate of poutine! Enjoy! Thanks for your help in cleaning up the massive copying.

Spread the goodness of plate of poutine by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=blue|bg=cream|image=Poutine.JPG|article=a|item=plate of poutine }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think this: [2] was the dif you were looking for. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]