User talk:Ukexpat/Archive 26
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Gajah Gallery
I appreciate your review on Gajah Gallery's profile. There was seriously no need for you to delete the images. The gallery is an existing structure and those images were taken recently. I have full rights and ownership of the images. thank you --Roeshini (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't delete the images, they were deleted by an admin on Commons after a review of their copyright status. Please take a look at the process set out at WP:IOWN for communicating permission to Wikimedia. Once appropriate evidence of permission has been determined, the images can be undeleted. Please note that permission must be for all purposes and not just limited to use on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 December 2011
- News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins
- In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge
- Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship
- WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...
- Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Chateau de la Motte naming explanation
Ukexpat thanks for the attention but check the discussion on the page, which I just added, to see why it was titled with a location.Mlane (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Replied at Talk:Château de la Motte. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, that is fine. If it becomes a problem later we can deal with it.I visited Chateaux in France link as I had before. Those are not my concern, a search on French Wikipedia brings perhaps a dozen, usually delineated by (name of commune). I know of others in Normandy alone, but I'm willing to wait until it is an issue.
UPSU Radio Logo
Orphaned non-free image File:Logo upsuradio.png
I'm a) using it in a WIP b) Own the rights to the image myself is that reason enough for it to stay? Not going to lie I'm very new to writing wiki articles but wanted to make an article for the radio society I'm a member of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scratchedguitar/Upsuradio2
Scratchedguitar (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, per WP:NFCC non-free images cannot be used in userspace, no exceptions. If the image is deleted and if (a big if given the notability issues) the draft makes it to mainspace, the image can be undeleted. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It won't be going into mainspace until the notability issues have been dealt with, along with actually finishing the article, shall re-upload the image at such a time as that is the case Scratchedguitar (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help btw, didn't realise what the notability rules where before my first post was deleted, apologies for causing issues Scratchedguitar (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hayes Perkins
Thank you for your comment on my submission. The person I write about is notable as world traveler who chronicled first hand accounts of his late 19th and early 20th Century experiences all over the world from a working class perspective. The closest category I can find on the notability page is "diplomat." Though "diplomat" is not quite accurate, it gives me a sense that I might try to write into the article a case for the subject's notability based on his breadth of experience and unique viewpoint on events and people about whom secondary sources have written extensively. JohnManfordMartin (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)john martin
- The person is only notable as that term is used on Wikipedia if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. That is not the common or garden definition of "notable" but it is the one we use here. So, as I said at the New contributors help page, if no reliable secondary sources can be cited dealing with this individual, you will have an uphill battle. Also note, as I previously mentioned, sources do not have to be online. – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your comments are very helpful. Thanks for taking your time. There are a few secondary sources who cite the Mr. Perkins' diaries in support of their own research on subjects like zoos, whitewater rafting, itinerant farm workers, and the life of William Randolph Hearst. All mention Perkins as having experiences that are of historical relevance to their topics but none discuss him as their direct subject.. I think I am understanding you correctly that these kinds of secondary citations do not qualify Perkins as "notable." JohnManfordMartin (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)john martin
Moundville Archaeological Site
Hi, you removed the template {{DISPLAYTITLE}} from this article. I don't suppose you could do a better job of explaining to me the purpose of this template than the template documentation? :-) I couldn't follow it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia:DISPLAYTITLE#Changing the displayed title help? I removed it in this case because, as far as I can tell, there is no need to change the displayed title. – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I would have thought it did, but the template wasn't having any effect, so I experimented with putting the template after the infobox (as the discussion you linked to mentioned), and it still didn't seem to work. I realize there's no reason to change the title of the article, but I wanted to see if it would work. I must be doing something wrong (I tried it in my sandbox, too, so I could save the changes - in the article I only experimented with Show preview).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
.jpg){kind=link}
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.
Thank you for pointing out that the citations in the James Doolin article I am working on need work and are incomplete. I was relying on incorrect/ insufficient information I received from Wk:Help Desk to create those citations, following directions exactly as given. I will sort this out, hopefully with better instruction. I am brand new to Wk. Again, thanks.
Norlns22 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have put the tag back on the article - it should stay there until the issue has been dealt with. For assistance, please see WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:NAMEDREFS. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It would have helped if you would have bothered to explain exactly what issues you have w/ my citations. I believe the article, which I am still working on btw, was extremely well sourced, as in EVERY SENTENCE was sourced and each citation included the URL, the title of the article, its author (when applicable/ available) and date (when applicable/ available) and the website name. I did not use templates because I was citing sources exactly as I had been instructed to by a help desk person when I first began the article. I believe I have been extremely meticulous with my citations. I might understand if you had an issue with the QUALITY of the sources, as there is not an overabundance of articles or information written about this particular artist, and until I can get to a major university library, I am relying solely on online sources. For these reasons, to have a warning label put on the article regarding citations, particularly when JUST YESTERDAY I asked about citation styles (question more minutiae in nature actually) in Wk:help desk and was informed that many styles of citations exist and that the content of the citation was more important, AND also, because one of the help desk regulars was on the article page after he answered my question and (s)he failed to bring up any issue w/ bare URLs, it's all rather a bit ironic. It is stuff like this that gives WK a bad name imo, and makes me want to not even bother. Why don't you just remove the article? That would actually make me happier than having to stare at some warning box (again, after I've spent HOURS being overly meticulous with citations) while I convert everything over to a template format that is, as far as I can see, requiring and providing the EXACT SAME INFO as I have already given in my citations. Norlns22 (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
My cleanup on James Doolin was *only* merging references, I didn't do anything else.Naraht (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- That was a big help to the article though! – ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- True, but either bare URL applied both before and after what I did, or it doesn't apply. I think with proper encouragement User:Norlns22 could be a great Wikignome, I just think he needs to be properly lead to the correct way to do things.Naraht (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's an ownership issue. The article, in general, is OK; of course anything can improve, and appropriate templates help us see what. I'd put some comment about the lede (because the quotes there are a bit out of place, and don't summarize the article) - but maybe best not, given that the user seems to view such things as a personal "warning". Chzz ► 09:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- True, but either bare URL applied both before and after what I did, or it doesn't apply. I think with proper encouragement User:Norlns22 could be a great Wikignome, I just think he needs to be properly lead to the correct way to do things.Naraht (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation
Hi! You marked commons:File:8tracks logo.jpg as a possible copyright violation. I don't agree, so I changed it to a normal deletion request. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:8tracks logo.jpg if you want to discuss the matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 December 2011
- Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa
- News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community
- In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed
- WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia
- Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Help Desk
Hi there, thanks for adding the link to my draft article.--Davescanlon (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
annie bacon page
got it. thanks for your insight. I'll wait and see if history finds me notable. best, annie Mangowanger (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Sadly I cannot comply. Too complicated for me.
I accessed the 'sandbox' facility you created for me. That's as far as I got. I accessed 'sanbox tutorial' also, but could not make sense out of it. Why is it that Wickipedia makes it so difficult for the 'novice' consumer to submit articles. Everyone I know who has a computer uses a 'wordprocessor' in order to compose. The simplest procedure, therefore, is to compose in WORD or another word processor; then, simply, cut and paste. But Wickipedia does not provide this facility. It creates its own complicated procedures of 'sandbox' and other provisions the 'novice' just does not understand. The 'novice' as speedily as possible wants to submit an article. He or she does not want to have to read endless instructions in web pages, before he can do this. And, that is why, he simply aborts; and does not bother anymore. (Like I do now)
It is a great pity though. Because the info I wanted to post is not presently within Wickipedia. And, it is the most important information, especially for the British, in respect to the complete failure of the present day 'Reigning Monarch' ELIZABETH THE SECOND, to act as Head of Government protecting Her Subjects. And, thereby, it is highly debateable whether there is the 'true legality' for Her occupying the British throne. The feature I wanted to submit is "Original Contract"and this is the legal and lawful 'contract' Betwixt Subject and King. It is fully entrenched and established in English Law. Though 'unwritten' this is the contract whereby the breaking of it provided the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, with the legal instrument to remove King James the Second from his throne.
Wickipedia provides many contributions in respect to the social contract. They are all theory. The Original Contract even though it is unwritten; is LAW The CONVENTION in 1688 declared that King James IIhad Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People and, that, thereby he had abdicated the throne. But the CONVENTION also determined that all other 'Reigning Monarch's' in the line of succession, that did likewise; they also could be removed from the throne. Queen ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not acted as 'Head of Government' protecting Her Subjects since the very first day she sat upon the British throne. She is prevented from carrying out that role. From the very day that the British Monarchy abandoned 'absolute monarchy' and became a Constitutional Monarchy instead; no British 'Reigning Monarch' ever since has been able to carry out that role. Though nevertheless, in respect to the Protection of the Subject the responsibility to 'protect' still remains.
I think now perhaps you might see how an entry in respect to ORIGINAL CONTRACTin Wickipedia is long overdue.
If I had an email address I could send the full text I wished to publish. Then, you or someone else could enter it on my behalf.
Regards, Gordon (Birdsaflying) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdsaflying (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- You can copy and paste your text from word. If you click on this link, the sandbox that I created will open in edit mode and you can paste your text in. I will put the sandbox on my watch list so that I can see when you have edited it. – ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ukexpat; I have now entered the full text in the sandbox provision youu created for me. I am still experiencing grave difficulties with Wickipedia though; I cannot see how you transfer from the sandbox in order to fully enter the submission in the encyclopedia. I think I managed the format and layout, and I think I save the page. But I do not have a clue how to retrieve that page again. Regards, thanks for your help, Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdsaflying (talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi UKexpat I really did try, but I now have to give it up. Submitting an article in Wickipedia is a nightmare indeed. I, finally, and after considerable difficulty, managed to submit my article for review. I note today that this has been rudely rejected on the grounds that it ids not written in Wickipedia style. (Without any explanations at all). Noting that Wickipedia did not have any listing or entry under the title of "ORIGINAL CONTRACT" I attempted to submit an article that would correct this grave omission. An encylopedia not having any listing in respect of this title is very remissive indeed. Americans have a "Written Constitution", a proper "Bill of Rights" and a "Supreme Court of Law" for their protection against the abuses of the Executive and Government. But, the British have none of this. The British have no 'recognized' protection of law whatsoever in order to question or challenge the 'abuses' of Parliament and Government. Essentially, because, ALTHOUGH THAT PROTECTION ALREADY EXISTS IN LAW, Government, Parliament, and, even, Monarchy 'ignore' the provision of that protection. The 'Reigning Monarch' sits on the British throne - without any legality at all - because Queen Elizabeth the Second fails to provide the protection of Her Subjects from the abuses of Parliament. Required of her by the "Original Contract'. And, in that failing, she abdicates the throne. Parliament abuses the People every day it is sitting, wholly ignoring the People's protection afforded by LAW set out in the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed"; that, determines, that in Parliaments 'application' of and, in its claim to its Supremacy, "NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE". But, Parliament, refuses to acknowledge and honor that Statute. The British Judiciary has refused to allow the questioning or challenging of Parliament in its Courts for the last 322 years; the Judiciary for this injustice, has always relied upon "Article 9" of the Bill of Rights 1689 as the legality for that denial. But, in that very same Bill, in the "Statute in Force/The Said Rights Claimed" this determines, that anyone may challenge Parliament from within LAW in the Courts, whenever Parliament 'prejudice' the People.
THe British and British Parliament and Government frequently lecture the rest of the world about DEMOCRACY. Arrogantly they lecture all other nations as to the wonderful DEMOCRACY Britain is. In, reality, Britain is not a DEMOCRACY at all. Democracy is government by the people, of the people, and for the people. In Britain it is nothing like that at all. It is, Government and Parliament by the political 'diktat' of the political parties. And, the People have no 'protection' at all.
Yet, the ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMBINED WITH THE STATUTE/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS; that provides the People, with all the protection of LAW, they need. The problem is, the vast majority of the British People have no idea that this protection exists. In exactly the same manner as WICKIPEDIA, they are 'ignorant' of its existence. They have not bothered to find out about this protection at all. They know nothing about their history of Parliament. The know nothing about the unlawful and illegal way in which they are being governed. They know nothing about the ORIGINAL CONTRACT and, the protection it affords.
UKexpat; if you have the know how; please bring this to the attention of the WICKIPEDIA executive and the 'review' board. I am too tired and too old to pursue this any further. So I now must quit. I shall try and publish all this valuable information on other blog websites.
THE "ORIGINAL CONTRACT" TO THE BRITISH IS MORE VALUABLE THAN THE "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT". It's enforcement, forces, the 'Reigning Monarch' to protect HER Subjects; forces, the Judiciary to allow challenge to Parliament in their Courts; and, it forces Parliament to ditch the practise of the domination of the Political Parties in Parliament. Where in, an 'elected parliament', the People should reign Supreme.
Birdsaflying (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you! Regarding the orphan tag, we now have three links to the page; one on youtube, and two on linkedin. How many links is enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miklminn (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Helpdesk - Problem with WCQL-FM article
Wikipedia:Help desk#Problem with WCQL-FM article
Hi, thanks for the credit. Quick question re. the legal aspect mentioned by Darrin Anderson - I was tempted to tell him that it was highly unlikely that Dial Global would be able to file legal action against his company for an outdated slogan on Wikipedia, but then though that this might be tantamount to offering legal advice - Would it have breached the legal advice guideline?
Am heading out now, so may not respond to your response promptly, but any tips on the subject would be appreciated. Cheers, Darigan (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
brandnew editor is looking for some feedback
To Chzz, John and UKexpat A brandnew editor is looking for some feedback. I gave some here, which isn't all that positive, and I think others viewed the issue as resolved. The editor is asking how to move forward. Does the editor's suggestion to consider a cat make sense? Does anyone have more encouraging thoughts on what to do with the draft?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 December 2011
- News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics
- In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?
- Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions
- WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics
- Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content
- Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
GOCE newsletter
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
  Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't nominate, because I don't know much about that topic. It wasn't entirely obvious to me, and perhaps it was notable in which case I may have done some copy editing in the case that whoever would find it usable, would add further content/context, so as to demonstrate its worth too all.Questionable pulse (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Wolff Olins
Hi ukexpat, Can you explain why you feel that the recent work section of the Wolff Olins page was aimed only at promotion? I think its helpful to see what the company has done recently, the same way that, say, you'd find new Coca-Cola products outlined on that page. Each of the works was sourced to an external review of the work and not linked to that company's "Case Studies" page. Plus, criticisms of the work are mentioned where appropriate. It seems like this is a helpful expansion of a page rated as fairly incomplete. Best, SBL19 Sbl19 (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC) --Sbl19 (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)SBL19
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Ben Carson recent edits
Hi, I have noticed your edits on the Ben Carson article. Unregistered editor 99.117.18.13 has made some odd edits under Carson's personal life section. I am not aware of which of the statements are true. Perhaps you do. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 December 2011
- Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data
- News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news
- WikiProject report: The Tree of Life
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales
- Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Please comment at Fandi Ahmad's ongoing peer review!
Hope you have a wonderful 2012! Thanks for volunteering to copyedit articles on peer review. I have written an article about Singapore football legend Fandi Ahmad and am aiming for GA status. Would you like to start 2012 by commenting at its ongoing peer review and thus supporting the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia? Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
An article you PROD'd
... has been restored at WP:REFUND. The article is Broken and Shared (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
| Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus). |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 January 2012
- Interview: The Gardner interview
- News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III
- Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future
- Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the help on Chateau de la Motte.
Ukexpat - thanks for going over Chateau de la Motte and smoothing things out. I would also like to thank you for all the work you do at Wikipedia in a professional and courteous way. It is obvious a few people like you do an enormous amount of the tedious work to keep it working well. The rest of us who only want to add articles on certain topics appreciate your dedication.Mlane (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ollywood Actor Chandan Kar.jpg
Hello Sir,
The image "Ollywood Actor Chandan Kar.jpg" uploaded by me for the article "Chandan Kar" is self created. The picture has been taken by me and the picture is not used in any websites or links.
Thanks and Regards Aspirers (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: DHWANI CET
Hello Ukexpat, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DHWANI CET, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Already failed PROD. AFD is in process. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg
Please stop the deletion process for File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg. See my addition to the file's entry at the "Files for Deletion" page. The file was just restored on Dec. 31, 2011, when the OTRS tag was FIRST applied. OTRS has NOT been pending since November, but since Dec. 31, 2011, which is only 9 days ago! --Skol fir (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Please note that this file is not yet in the category Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days, so what's your rush to have it deleted? The date stamp is either the date that I forwarded the letter of permission (28 December 2011) or the date that the "OTRS pending" tag was applied by Nyttend. It means that we still have to wait until 30 January before the time is up. --Skol fir (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold
- News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang
- WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz
- Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Wolff Olins
Hi Ukexpat,
Thanks for the correspondence. Yes, I am an employee of Wolff Olins (and, you're right, I should and will note so on my page as a COI) and upon noticing the low "completion rating" of 1.5 on the page, I thought I'd try to help expand the entry to share more information. I'm making sure to base all changes on legitimate sources (FastCompany, AdAge, Washington Post, etc.- never Wolff Olins case studies or anything like that) and have tried to be careful about maintaining an unbiased tone of voice. As you'll note, I havent tried to alter any of the criticisms on the page and actually, kind of feel that the page is skewed against the firm considering how many unmentioned awards/recognitions they've received (including Marketing Magazine's Design Agency of the year in 2006- http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/623306/ and more recently, being named as a GoodCo finalist by Good Magazine- http://www.good.is/post/goodco-finalists-two-companies-with-responsible-cultures/). But based on your message, it seems that you feel some of my changes haven't been so objective.
Anyways, I wasn't sure how active this community was but seeing your prompt input to some of my changes and your interest in this page, I'd love to work with you to ensure that all wikipedia standards are maintained, both in terms of formatting and objectivity. If I propose changes in the talk page, will you make an effort to fairly integrate them into the page? If you don't have time to do so, I'll just be more careful about maintaining an unbiased point of view.
Looking forward to working with you to improve this page.
Thanks! Re: Boyle, County Roscommon
Cheers mate, i'm a noobie editor and have been holding this page together for a while now, it gets attacked regularly by plug attempts and a complete lack of a neutral point of view. Appreciate your time. Agent4776 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you help me to clean up the page File:Simon-Britton-Sir-Paul-McCartney-LIPA-Liverpool.jpg
Hey! Thanks for adjusting the levels on the file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon-Britton-Sir-Paul-McCartney-LIPA-Liverpool.jpg
Much appreciated! It seems I started an image-revision-war on that page, and it's all junked up now and unnecessarily so... seems to compromise the integrity of the file itself when you look at all of the revisions and comments - is there a way you can clean that up and delete all the file versions prior to your correction for the sake of keeping the page on task and not looking like a junkyard?
If you could do that, it would be very much appreciated, as I never meant to start a war on the file revisions!
Calence (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not an admin so I cannot delete the previous versions, but it's not really a problem having them there. When permission has been received and approved, the current version can be moved to Commons, which is the appropriate place for freely licensed images. – ukexpat (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Assistance on the Full Sail University Article
Hi Ukexpat, you may recall the conversation we had here. I'm in need of some assistance on the Full Sail University article. Would you be willing to look at this conversation thread and respond with your suggestions, as I have been trying to reach consensus but have not received a response to the most recent question posted last week. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. --Tylergarner (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Badges
Hey, I'm new here, can you tell me how to get those badge things on my page Thanks GO UK! Bronconation14 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah:) How do you paste them on??? Bronconation14 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation Appeal
Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
 Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2451 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. |
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kris Herzog 5 people, out of over 500 million that use Wikipedia, including you attacked him and his page because he is a U.S. Celebrity and U.S. Combat Veteran, you and they were petty and every-time I tried to make corrections, they deleted my cor
Kris Herzog
5 people, out of over 500 million that use Wikipedia, including you attacked him and his page because he is a U.S. Celebrity and U.S. Combat Veteran, you and they were petty and every-time I tried to make corrections, they deleted my corrections to cause my page to be deleted.
Herzog was a key and central figure in some of the biggest news stories of 2009, 2010, 2011, Mel Gibson, Herman Cain and many other National and International News Stories.
You and they have violated Wikipedia rules and will be banned from Wikipedia soon.
I have contacted Kris Herzog, his Attorney/s called me, researched this issue and has made an appeal to the corporate Headquarters of Wikipedia http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us, as Kris Herzog's clients have donated several million dollars to Wikipedia.
Kris Herzog's Attorney has asked Wikipedia to BAN YOU and those that attacked his page.
I hope you and those other idiots enjoy being BANNED from Wikipedia for attacking his page. NO ONE ever countered my argument that Kris Herzog is MORE Noteworthy than THOUSANDS of others that currently have Wikipedia pages.
You and the others attacked his page because he is man American Celebrity and United States Combat Veteran.
I, he and his people all feel a great injustice has been done by you and those others, we have all agreed to make it our mission in life to get you all banned from Wikipedia, to make sure you can not abuse any others, as you did us.
Your Power and theirs is about to be taken away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aad351 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks
..for the heads-up on that I do away with my democratic rights when I log onto Wikipedia. Preposterous as it is, I will have to accept it. MarcRey (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18
- Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?
- News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer
- Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for correcting the talk page. i was wondering what do you do with a talk page then?
CKruserose (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
David Oyelowo Page
Hi-
So sorry for the confusion but the photo I posted was approved by Wikipedia users when I provided them with full permission from the photographer. Below is a copy of an email thread between me and a Wikipedia volunteer. Please find everything needed to ensure the posting of the picture. Thank you.
-Cassandra Quarto
Re: [Ticket#2011112110046718] David Oyelowo Page Permissions - Wikimedia Commons [permissions-commons@wikimedia.org] You replied on 1/17/2012 12:06 PM. Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:00 AM To: Viewpoint Assistant Cc: Bria Schreiber Dear Viewpoint Assistant,
Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.
11/21/2011 23:43 - Viewpoint Assistant wrote:
> Hello- > > I am writing on behalf of our client, David Oyelowo, at Viewpoint PR. We want to change the main picture that is currently on the site and we have written permission from the photographer to use the photo. I have had trouble trying to go about this so if there is any way you can point me in the right direction or give me the correct contact information of someone who can help, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time. > > Thanks, > Cassandra > > > Cassandra Quarto > Viewpoint > 8820 Wilshire Boulevard > Suite 220 > Beverly Hills, CA 90211 > P: 310-388-3333 > F: 424-249-3333 > >
We often recommend multi-licensing your work under both the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license (all versions).
In essence, this arrangement allows others to copy, adapt, redistribute, or retransmit your work for any purpose, as long as you are attributed for your contribution and all derivative works (including commercial ones) remain under the free license. Your work will be released under both licenses, and re-users will be able to choose which one they wish to use, which makes their life easier. Finally, your work will be released under the newest version of the two licenses, so when the licenses are updated your work will automatically switch to the new version.
You can review the full terms of each license online:
- GFDL: <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>
- CC-BY-SA: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
You can upload an image using <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard> and choose the most appropriate license and add the right image information and attribution. If you email me back, using the same subject line as this email, I would be able to add a verification ticket to avoid any later problems with doubts on authenticity of such a release.
Yours sincerely, Fae Styles
-- Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cquarto (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let me apologize for the confusion. I am not familiar with the "talk page" and how it works so I thought I was supposed to post on your talk page. David Oyelowo really would like the picture to be changed. I understand that this may not be a "good reason" to change the picture; however, it is a page that represents him and he does not feel comfortable with the picture that is currently posted. I have been in contacts with Wikipedia since November trying to find a way to get the photo changed. I understand you are very busy but if you can PLEASE help me out with this. I don't know what else to do. Any help or point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. I know you are very busy so thank you, in advance, for your help.-Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cquarto (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Niall Ferguson article
Hello. You reverted out the admittedly somewhat redundant link in the Niall Ferguson article for Niall Ferguson's publications from his website. I had put it back in just because it was there before inserted by another editor and was in an inappropriate place inline. I didn't put it back in thoughtlessly or willy-nilly. Anyway, I guess it's best left out and is subsumed in Niall Ferguson's main webpage link. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for welcome
Hey, thanks for the welcome, I really appreciate it!--Prowress (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi
I think I deleted your comment along with mine at ANI to wipe it off the page, is that ok with you, I don't like to do that without your full consent, even if it's not exactly controversial. I found the right place to ask about the matter. Penyulap talk 19:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ken Haycock
Yesterday you deleted my wikipedia page for Dr. Ken Haycock. I assume you can see my talk page which outlined my issues with that deletion and my request to have it forwarded it to me so that I may make the appropriate changes. I have been told that since you were the administrator who deleted it, you are the one can do that. As I indicated on my talk page, since there hadn't seemed to be an issue for almost a year, I have deleted the file. I would appreciate your assistance in getting this corrected. Thank you. Geoff Watt Ggeoffwatt (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.png
Thanks for uploading File:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Institute for Bible, Theology & Hermeneutics.
Hi, thanks for your comments on the page Institute for Bible, Theology & Hermeneutics. I am not affiliated with the Institute, but am with the University. You redirected the page without giving me a chance to respond. I'm not sure now what to do now? The previous comment from DGG was to possibly merge which seemed reasonable but he'd left it up there for me to respond. Now, the problem is that this morning I was going to try to merge the page but I can't get at it any more because you redirected it. Can you tell me if there is a way I can get at the information I had put up there so that I can merge the information? --Ddragovic (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- You will find the previous text here, but be careful when you merge - merging does not mean copying the whole of the text to the other article, just pick the salient points otherwise the other article will be "overweighted" and focus too much on the Institute. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Right aligning of pictures on short article
Hi, I noticed that you moved the pictures on the St Mary's College page of the University of St Andrews. You moved them to right alignment but the problem is that they are now off the page in the sense that they align with the references. I'm no expert but it seems odd and quite frankly ugly. I presume that you didn't have time to look at the results--I don't mean this disrespectfully. Can you let me know if this is right? I mean it really is odd. Thanks, --Ddragovic (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that is correct. Unless it is a long article, left aligned images should be used sparingly as they distort the text and screw up headings etc, especially in the lead paragraph. One possible alternative to right-aligned thumbnails is to use a gallery. – ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)