Lecochonbleu
Provinces edit
Re your edits on United Kingdom and Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. The term province has never been used in respect of the countries of the UK other than Northern Ireland. Your definition of Britain excluded Scotland and it is often used to include Northern Ireland. These issues have been extensively debated and there are citations a plenty. Please read that material. You can always use the talk page if you are not convinced. I also had a look at your edits on the Belfast Hospital. There is a lot of WP:OR and un-cited material there. You might want to spend some time on the help pages to learn more about how WIkipedia works --Snowded TALK 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome edit
|
Hi. I've removed most of your recent Belfast edits as they appear to be original search, supposition and commentary, rather than anything factual and encyclopaedic. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusions, but wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Blowdart | talk 07:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to pop music edit
Hi, multiple editors have objected to your additions to the pop music article. Can you please address the concerns raised on the talk page and build consensus for their addition before adding them back to the article? --Muchness (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It would be very much appreciated if you would go to the talk page and explain your side and respond to the editors that have explained their side rather than just readding the unsourced information A new name 2008 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just wondering why you will not discuss the the edits on the talk page? A new name 2008 (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the content is removed. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009 edit
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Pop music, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Your determination to revert war instead of pursue any form of dispute resolution has temporarily exhausted any reasonable assumption of good faith. When you return from your block, if you still feel that this information should be included in Pop music, I suggest you calmly take your concerns to the talk page. And if you are as credentialed as you claim, you should have no trouble producing actual sources for your information. But Wikipedia is not a place for your own analysis, no matter who you are. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Lectern.JPG edit
Thank you for uploading File:Lectern.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rettetast (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Windmills of the Mind edit
I'm not sure what your reference to the Sunday Sport is suggesting. The reason that I deleted the sentence about the gender being changed when the song is sung by a woman is that it the need to make the change is unremarkable. Songs with specific gender references are almost always modified to suit the gender of the singer if necessary (be that male or female) - I hardly think that "females wishing to sing the song" will need to be told that this is the case. --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Your question to Sandstein edit
Sorry, but we really can't have talk pages for non-existent articles. Why not ask Sandstein directly? Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
O.K., thanks for suggesting that. It's not a good policy. The article was there, as others were that are deleted now, and should be able to have a talk page. It's a separate point that the article could be developed again, and also, because of this, should have a talk page. The confiscation of the facility to discuss at all about the subject of a deleted article which was published in this human publishing facility, The Web network (whatever reason it was deleted for, for the 'agreed good' or not that) is restrictive. Given that someone decided on this policy, it's quite fascist and against the spirit of anything Wikipedia could be about truly. Unless it's just that not a lot of thought went into it and an article removed means nothing at all worth much thought, but I think most people would have at least some thoughts about keeping a talk page alive for it. It should be quite a basic facility if you think about it.
Consider this article on this subject which was deleted. It's a bit a controversial subject considering there have been claims that the worlds' news media agencies shy away from talking much about it at all. And then the page is deleted, the reason given seemingly humour in poor taste and inappropriate or who knows what. So this subject, that of the deleted article, is a very good example of the restricitivism of confiscating the opportunity to discuss and publish for reading about a subject which had been published about. It is a good example of the kind of anti-information world, and more importantly anti-commuincation world (as I am talking about a discussion page rather than the subject information page itself) which Wikipedia was never intended to embrace truly.
- I have undone your question on the AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bilderberg Meeting, because the AfD is closed and should not be edited. To answer your question, my comment that "By direct order of the Supreme Grand Illuminatus himself, I am disregarding the unfortunately too insightful opinion of Tris2000" was an attempt at humor. Best, Sandstein 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. "should not be edited". While you now mention an attempt at humour before, you are indeed giving a monistic decree, a 'direct order of the Supreme Grand Iluminatus himself'. As you know, that's up to you. There for all to see, now and beyond, as you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.85.194 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Image source problem with File:Vicinage, illustration inside the college, which is on the site of Vicinage House.JPG edit
Thank you for uploading File:Vicinage, illustration inside the college, which is on the site of Vicinage House.JPG.
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)