Little grape

Just one little grape. Fully ripened. Almost, indeed, a raisin Little grape (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Black.

A corporate touchy-feely internal memo, which doesn't even support your opinion, isn't evidence. As for WP:Identity, Note is says to use the common words now used. That's blacks, not black persons or people. I suggest your read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, which does a great job of distinguishing the terms. That article is about both in different contexts ,and doing a blanket replacement based on your personal issues with blacks is a disservice to the article. Where the 'black peoples' involved are blacks, as opposed to Khoi, San, Madagascarans, Australian aborigines, and so on, our article, can, should, and tries to distinguish. Where it properly refers to blanket labelling of 'black peoples', it also tries to be successful. Messing up the article to bring it some imagined sense of political correctness is a waste of time and detrimental to the article and to a reader's experiences here. ThuranX (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It recommends avoidance, it does not ban use. In locations in which the difference between 'black people' and the more specific 'blacks' matters, we should be specific, not 'polite'. I don't know what you think this project is about, but it's about dispassionate facts, not making any group 'feel nice'. We don't use obviously rude terms nor perjoratives, but nor should we wrap the Khoi, San or Pygmies intot he same group as blacks, which injudicious use of 'Black peoples' does. Read Diamond - he won a Pulitzer for it, it's not some fly-by-night feel good or racist-based nonsense. I'm not doing this out of ignorance, as you suggest, but because this particular article specifically takes on matters of differentiation, and to use the generic widest-cast nest in such a case is only appropriate in some cases in that article, not all. It does little good to call the Khoi and the West African Black by the same name when there's clear differentiations in phenotype, language, culture, and more. ThuranX (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you continue to edit war while this issue is being discussed, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up..

...on the SPI - WTF? The guy cannot even get my user name right! – ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lazarowicz

Hi, thanks for you message. It looks like the problem stopped with your warning (for now, anyway). Warning is the right thing to do (templates listed at WP:UWT). If it's persistent, report it at WP:AIV (and an admin may come and block). --h2g2bob (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Bugner

• Refs sorted out now. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How to Game an Article - a Primer

first iteration: Dec 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.129.169.196

second: Jan 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.139.184.244

third: March 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.144.195.132

fourth: Aug 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.129.181.230

fifth: Oct 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.129.175.18

sixth: Nov 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.147.236.255

seventh: (eventually caught) Nov 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joneseyboy2007

eighth: May 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.129.186.169

ninth: June 2007 (France motoring holiday) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.11.233.66

tenth: June 2007 (France motoring holiday) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.253.46.23

eleventh: June 2007 (France motoring holiday - Nice, Hotel Ibis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.244.27.74

twelfth: July 2007 (Italy motoring holiday - Grand Hotel Duca d'Este) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.253.188.114

ditto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.253.188.115

ditto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.253.188.123

ditto: (plus a return to the hotel in 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.253.188.105

thirteenth: July 2007 (the motoring tour returns to Britain via Germany) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.187.149.212

ditto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.187.146.99

ditto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.187.149.50

fourteenth: July 2007 (home again) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.155.231.124

terrifying how just one person can game an article..... and I've only got up to 14th July 2007 thus far

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Marc Sinden has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am asking you to cease edit warring on Mark Sinden. You seem to be removing content that is perfectly in-line with policy, such as sourced material, and I am failing to see how these violate BLP. Please discuss changes before reverting them. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc Sinden

Just a note, you are very close to being blocked for edit warring there. Kevin (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have moved to reverting at another article here. Do you not understand the point of my warning above? Kevin (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Annette Bening

No problem. I knew she was younger than 42 for The Grifters. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Lang Vei

The point is that there is fighting done at night. The article describes that there is a difference between initiating combat at night and continuing during the day, and fighting during the day and continuing at night. Regardless, both require night tactics at some point. Anyway, I'm trying to de-orphanize Night combat and I understand that Vietnam involves a lot of night fighting and movement. Have you got suggestions besides the Battle of Lang Vei? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I just started the article recently, but I got hired at a new job at the same time and now I have much less time to work on it, lol. There's a lot more to be said on the topic...as soon as I have time. Do you know the name of the battle you mentioned between scots and romans? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this the battle you're talking about? Massacre of the Ninth Legion AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

This [1] was way over the line, and as I've previously warned you about this kind of thing you have been blocked for 2 days. When you return I do not expect to see you at Marc Sinden, as you have now clearly shown your total inability to work collaboratively with the other editors there, notwithstanding that their behavior has also been poor. As usual, add {{unblock|your reason here}} to appeal this block. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that [user:Captainclegg] has been blocked for socking, and revealed as a single-purpose account that almost single handedly (along with socks past and present) pushed the name Marc Sinden into 468 articles on WP [2], the long process of desindenisation begins. Help! Little grape (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

wealthiest

I understand your points. But the best we can do per wp guidelines is attribute to the RSs who speak to the subject. In many third world countries, btw, for whatever reasons, senior ministers do have significant wealth--whether before or after their government positions. In many African tribes the number of wives/children are also indicia of wealth (here--2/16). And clearly by the value of their London apt, he is far wealthier than the standard Nigerian who lives on two dollars a day. As to financial institutions, if they are following the European model (likely), the Chairman would receive stock options and perhaps stock as well as salary, and could be very highly compensated.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it as you've proposed. I'd disagree with you in regard to misuse of the term 'wealthiest' as opposed to 'wealthy', but I'm fairly relaxed about it all until there's more evidence... Little grape (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing Marc Sinden

I noticed that you're editing Marc Sinden despite Rdm2376's comment above when he blocked you. I hope you're being cautious with your editing there. I'll keep my eye out for any problems with the article, and interject if necessary. I'm a very strong believer in "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I've made some initial edits to the talk page to make it more civil. I'll wait for others' responses before doing more. I'm tempted just to archive the whole thing to start fresh. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the section title with my name, but I've got broad shoulders so was happy for it to remain. Anti-puffery attracts the greatest vitriol, because of course one is often dealing with a massive ego. Similarly, please leave the section above that, which rather neatly captures some of the activity by four editors who were later revealed to be the same person. I'm not in the least bit bothered that my good name is dragged through the dirt - it's not my real name, this is not real life and thus it matters not a jot!

Re the block - it's worth noting that the block was because I continued to edit war with 'other editors' on Marc Sinden - this turned out not to be true; all the 'other editors were the SPA user:Captainclegg in various guises. Kevin eventually realised this, did a checkuser, and blocked 'em all - but didn't realise until *after* he'd blocked me for suggesting in an edit summary that one of the socks might like to blow his own head off. I then reverted to Kevin/Rdm2376 on his talk page re his supposed subject ban, but he then appeared to have a meltdown, changed his username, deleted his entire talkpage, then went on wikibreak.

I'm perfectly happy for anyone to review *all* my edits on this topic/person; now that Clegg et al have been revealed to be 'close to Marc Sinden' I think every single edit (and summary) stands up as attempts to deal - alone - with a hopelessly conflicted COI/POV-pusher. For the scale of the problem just look at [3] - just about all those edits are by Clegg or his socks (previous mainsock was [User:Crowley666] who was blocked in March 2009).

Some help on desindenisation would be great - you'll see via the google results list that I've worked my way through the first quarter or so, so perhaps you could start from the other end?! I've desindenised naround half of the ones I've looked at - some are perfectly legit, but most are sheer, naked puffery of the worst type - e.g. where he takes credit away from far more worthy receipients. Thanks Little grape (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What a mess he made. If you don't mind a suggestion, when I clean up similar situations (spammers and vandals using socks), I work on one account at a time so it's clear what I'm doing. I also try to make at least a few very descriptive edit summaries for the same reason, then use more abbreviated edit summaries just to get through it quickly. I also keep an eye open for situations where the content is best left as is, rather than simply reverting everything. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right if you mean work on one editor's edits at a time? The problem is that there were so many socks/IP users that it would take forever to go through the edits of each, one by one. There's at least a couple of thousand. As they all concentrate almost exclusively on Marc Sinden-related articles it makes the hunter-killer role easier if one uses google to identify all the edits pertaining to that person irrespective of who made them, then review each article (now less than 400) in its current form. This also has the advantage that I'm not actually bothering to look at the actual edit Clegg or whoever may have made months ago (many of them have in any case been reverted by other editors), I just look at the current version of the article and make an 'undue weight' call. But let me know if I'm missing a trick that would make it easier. All the puffery is immediately obvious!

Good point about the edit summaries; I'll adapt accordingly - have been tagging with 'sindenisation' so I and others can keep track. Thanks again; I'll revisit tomorrow. Little grape (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Take what you can use. Sounds like you have a better approach given the size of the problem. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Winner - BLP violations

Please note that 3RR does not apply to the removal of BLP violations. The current version of the dubious text rather clearly has problems regarding undue weight, with derisive intent, and with inadequate sourcing. The first two reverts were of completely unsourced, uncomplimentary at best texts added to a BLP, and are indisputably exempt from 3RR. The anon IPs text also misrepresents the substance of the referenced article, with the intent of casting a false light on the article subject through selective quotation/distortion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - and it just needed tidying, not removal. Your personal comments against the editor, and your somewhat odd conclusions as to his supposed motives, were not helpful. Anyway, it's sorted now and everyone's happy..... Little grape (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Ady Gil. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Terrillja _talk 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources are ref'd in the article. Can you be more specific?Little grape (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding your own interpretations of what you see in the videos is original research.--Terrillja _talk 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, pls be specific - what OR is in the article that isn't in the video or the Underwater Times article?Little grape (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean the ICR press release. Call it for what it is. Your insertion of firearms, not stated anywhere, "towing a hawser seemingly designed to foul the prop of the larger ship. In addition the footage shows Ady Gil crew shining a green laser at the bridge personnel of the Shonan Maru 2 in what appears to be an attempt to dazzle crew members." None of that is cited. Watching a video and deciding what you feel happened or what the intentions are of anyone in said video is original research.--Terrillja _talk 21:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not an ICR press release, it appears to be an article written by UT. You need to be very sure of your facts before accusing a publication of simply reprinting a press release - so far you've been unable to back up your claim. Little grape (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the third paragraph of the article. That should answer your question.--Terrillja _talk 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This "Watch the video" is not a proper reference. It is original research.--Terrillja _talk 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Ikip

I mentioned your recent block at arbitration request. If you do decide to comment, please mention that I informed you of this arbitration request. Ikip 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Youe need a new section

re your post in Ikip's section (which he links above), you should really comment in a new section of your own. Note that in the "How to" instructions at the top of the page it says:

"This is not a page for discussion.

• Reply to another person's comment in your section. See the relevant section of the arbitration guide."

  pablo_hablo. 13:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - as Ikip's statement seemed to entirely be in regard to my block, it seemed to be the right place to respond - it appeared inappropriate to make a new section just to respond to something I didn't really feel very strongly about one way or another. Thus I ignored the rules. And I don't think I 'discussed' what others had written, I simply wrote of my own experience with Kevin in a way that I hope was helpful to him and others. Feel free to chop the layout and placing about as you see fit, if that works better for you? Little grape (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pablo was right, and I've moved it. Among other things you messed up what was a collapsed section. I'm afraid it's not a rule we let people ignore. I struck out the bit about you attaching your edit to his, you might want to remove it or change it. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It made no sense stuck out on its own - I've deleted it; I didn't feel that strongly anyway, and it appeared Kevin was going through some personal stuff so I wasn't bothered at the time. Little grape (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete my email address, so I requested a new password.

thanks for responding in the Arbcom. I think it is important to note that editors such as User:William M. Connolley and User:A Man In Black both lost their adminship partly because of WP:INVOLVED blocks similar to what this admin did to you. Ikip 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. I don't think we'd in any way crossed swords previously apart from him warning me re Marc Sinden, and I regard that as purely administrative and neither of us personalised it. I think where Kevin went wrong was to fail to properly investigate evidence put before him a month previously re the POV-pushing sock circus that was user:Captainclegg, failed to independently take action against Clegg when two minutes of contrib-assessing would have revealed the SPA aspect, and then exceeded the hopes of 'a person very close to Marc Sinden' by blocking me from the full gamut of Sinden-puffery. Then, when Kevin belatedly realised what was going on and eventually took action against the socks, he failed to put the other bit right (eg when he previously incorrectly thought it was two editors simply warring) by rescinding the block and expunging my record back to impeccability in this regard. Finally (and most tiresomely of all) he sped off on wikibreak without clearing up the mess.

As I said, I'm relaxed about it because he seems to be a good guy and was clearly having a tough time having been outed, fired, and gawd knows what else in a very short period. So I cut him some slack. And I'd certainly argue *against* any such draconian punishment if he was found to be at fault in this instance. Little grape (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Marc Sinden

I have removed potentially libelous material from this page. If you are going to make potentially libelous accusations (such as stating the subject of the article is lying about things or or stating the subject is seeking to deceive people), you must back them with reliable sources or they will be immediately removed. If you persist in adding them, you will be blocked from editing the site. You have already been warned (and blocked once) for your actions regarding this article and related topics, and you will not get another warning. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you define what you're classing as 'potentially libellous'? I certainly haven't stated that Sinden was lying - diff pls? It's a matter of fact that Marc Sinden Productions Ltd ceased trading in 2003, and that at least one of the directors listed on the page is dead. It seems somewhat odd for you to have blanked the entire talk age as a result?

And I see that a Clegg clone (he still hasn't got the hang of not putting four tildes in an edit summary) is back on the case and reverted your trivia rm. Little grape (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Heard it all before

Slim virgins are often responsible for sudden nasty spills on clothes. But that's enough pervert boosting from me for one day! SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Beki Bondage

Just noticed your recent edit. I am fairly certain that her date of birth is 3 June 1963 and, at one time, it was listed as such in her article. I then got an e-mail from her 'partner' requesting that this detail was removed ("as it is incorrect", or some such). It was removed by another editor in the end, around March / April 2007. Try reading User talk:Stargtr for further background. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense - but clearly this is an encyclopaedia not a PR directory, therefore suppression or alteration of people's age isn't appropriate. I see the (eminently RS) Guinness book has her date as 3rd June 1963; I'll put it in the article. Little grape (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've re-removed the date from Beki Bondage; this was removed as the result of this ANI discussion and associated emails, in which the subject's manager had expressed concerns about our listing her full details. Keeping Category:1963 births without listing the full date was the compromise agreed with her. – iridescent 11:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but bear in mind that 'someone' had sneakily changed that 'year of birth' category to 1966 instead of 1963 in what one might suppose was a dismal attempt at making her appear younger, so it's worth keeping an eye on..... Little grape (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Have done some trimming - article almost total puffery; how can someone who didn't even start a band until 1978 and didn't release a single until 1981 then claim to be the 'original punk pin-up'? And that a photo on a music mag with her hand over her chest was somehow controversial!!! Little grape (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the controversy about that mag cover wasn't about the pose, but the fact she was under the legal age for topless modelling at the time. I have no axe whatsoever to grind regarding this article and its quality or lack thereof; I was just the one who drew the short straw at getting it to at least a vaguely non-PR state back in 2007. It damn near got deleted altogether. (That 1966 dob might be my mistake; someone changed it to 1969 at one point, and I may have mistyped when I changed it back.) – iridescent 13:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - well there's no cite for the 'controversy', so let's leave it out. And the legal age was I think sixteen at the time, so by the time she rated a front cover (eg after her band actually released something in 1981) she was at least 18 so I suspect this is more fake puffery. Plus of course she wasn't even pictured nude, so there's even less basis for a spurious claim about controversy. Bear in mind this was a time when minors were shown topless on record sleeves (Skorpions? - now regarded as kiddie porn), so there's no reason to suspect that an 18-year old covering her assets on a music paper cover would have been even interesting, let alone controversial. Well done for grabbing the short straw, but don't let the b*ggers grind you down! Best, Little grape (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I am getting really p*ss*d off so listen to me and listen good Little Grape ( anonymous ) so there's a surprise.

I am getting sick of this constant editing war and ceaseless publishing of my partner Rebecca's details namely DOB. This whole affair is upsetting to myself and her- please stop putting ANY reference to her age online. Lazy journalists simply use Wiki as starting point for articles and take great relish in printing how old she is !!! WE DO NOT WANT THIS. We are hard working musicians with no financial reward from all this hassle, yet you people seem to find it interesting and somehow relevant to bandy our personal details around.

WILL YOU PLEASE STOP ? You may argue that with bit of research you can find this info - that is understood - but most people can't be bothered to dig any deeper and simply reference Wiki.

Once more all I ask is that you to delete DOB references and leave us alone. Why not find someone / something more interesting to do with your time ? If you continue to argue how relevant it is to publish her personal details in Wiki are we will seek legal representation.

If you do not show me some courtesy and acknowledge the upset this affair causes I will contact Wiki arbitrators.

As an aside, I notice that on the Beki page you removed anything positive or complimentary...do you really have nothing better to do with your time ?

Last point - would you want your partners personal details published online ? Do me a favour Little Grape give me your name and address so we can discuss this in person.

Not happy, but hoping you will understand my anger.....Thank you Stargtr (talk)] 13:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul, you may remember me from when this arose a couple of years ago. User:Little grape is currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to an unrelated matter, so I'll take the liberty of replying. As per my comments above, I agree with removing the exact date of birth, and there was a consensus to do so a couple of years ago. However, removing her age and Category:1963 births is pointless; almost every article published on her, then and now, includes some variation on "Beki joined Vice Squad in 1978 aged 15" – her age is common knowledge to anyone interested in the 1970s punk scene. – iridescent 15:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Iridescent, thank God I have found someone with common sense & understanding !

Think you can tell I'm totally seething here..... Who on Earth is this Little Grape busy body ? Understandable he/she has run into problems... I think you understand my frustration. The music industry is still sexist and ageist. Female artists are often upset by references to age as it is used as a stick to beat them with. Also we had a security issue with a bank a few years ago. We have other musician friends referenced on Wiki and they're DOB is not published..yet with a little effort this can be found, so why should we suffer this invasion of privacy at the hands of the likes of Little Grape ?? They remain anonymous and like sexism and ageism it is all grossly unfair. My view is that if people demand absolute truth then all Wiki contributors should have their details published !

So,my friend - is there ANYTHING you can do to help us ? Really we need someone conversant with editing who would write the whole thing again....( hint hint ). I get your point about category births but really we would like all references to Beki's age removed please, it's not a great deal to ask is it ? Is there a way we can be secure in the knowledge some other busy body or trouble causer will not revert ??

Good to hear from you...I can give you me email if it is quicket to communicate.

Cheers PaulStargtr (talk)] 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be unavailable so I won't be able to do anything with this myself. I've asked LessHeard vanU, who's a Wikipedia administrator who I know is familiar with the 70s punk & NW scenes, to try to resolve this, but I don't know when he'll next be available. Can I ask that you and Little Grape both leave it until he's commented; it won't damage anyone if the wrong version of the article is in place for a couple of days, and if you edit-war over it you'll likely just end up with a repeat of what happened in 2007. – iridescent 16:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks for your assistance.

I cannot accept that someone's God given right to privacy can be disregarded in such a way ! Actually, I read on a thread related to our incident where a contributor said it is Wiki's duty to respect a persons privacy and that if requested this should be maintained. Seems to me some contributors hide behind an anonymous veil and would be outraged if a similar thing happened to them, their partners or kids...... We hope that the person this is passed on to reads and respects our request. Kindest regards P Stargtr (talk)]16:15 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I will take some time to read myself into this issue, but I will give my understanding of how Wikipedia policy and guideline works as regards this matter. Articles, and especially biographies of living persons (WP:BLP), is based around WP:Notability; information that is not directly related to an individuals notability may only be included if it helps the reader better understand the subject matter, and it does not infringe upon the subjects privacy or private life (and must in any case be sourced to a reliable reference). From what has been written above, the fact that there are sources noting that Beki Bondage was aged 15 in 1978 suffices for the purpose of establishing why there was UK music media interest before she formed a group - there was quite a culture of establishing "notoriety" as a method of getting record company attention around the punk/alternative scene - and it is sufficiently referenced not to require a DOB as proof. The fact the subject would prefer not to have those details released should therefore be given the appropriate consideration, and the un-necessary detail removed. I will check into the previous discussions and see if it agrees with my understanding of the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per my review of the ANI discussion and my views above, it seems that there is no requirement to list the date of birth and we should therefore accommodate the request by the subjects representative. I have noted - with a commented out edit - that the information should not be included in the article infobox, and I trust that nobody will edit the Vice Squad article to add it also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you LessHard vanU so much for your time and effort. Am I right in thinking that there is nothing I can do to stop this info being reverted / republished ? When something is THIS upsetting is it not reasonable for any guidelines set up by Wiki to be flexible ? To be honest I think a complete deletion of Vice Squad, Beki and related articles would suit us just fine !!! It seems you do understand our predicament.: We have no financial security, we struggle to survive, yet uncaring busybodies deem it their mission to disregard our feelings and publish things we wish to keep private. Artists that have done well out of their career care not one iota what people think, they are secure, but we DO care what is published !

We still have to graft for a meagre living where ageism and sexism is used against us, a quick visit to Wiki provides people against us all the ammo they need.

The X Factor mob should be prepared for invasion of privacy, as they earn fortunes for being 'celebrity' and are paid for being written or photographed constantly. God knows they ain't paid for song writing or vocal abilities...

Celebrities live in comfort whilst the Punk Rockers and tellers of the truth are pushed down at every opportunity.....

Seems the revolution failed !!!

Thanks again for your help- P Stargtr (talk)]13:35 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Allan Warren pphotos

Yeah, I've been dealing with these photos in one way or another since he first added them to Peter Sellers, Laurence Olivier and Cary Grant. I'm not convinced the uploads credited to "Allan Warren" are from that person, and I alluded to that once in an edit summary, where I said "no matter what name you use, they require proper licensing." I find it extremely hard to believe that this guy had to foreward authorization to OTRS and then the photographer himself would show up to add them. Just don't buy it. His first actions were to add them to the infobox, as you said, in lieu of much better photos and I moved them if they were properly licensed. Fortunately, I had a guideline page to refer him to for the credits. Sheesh. Forge onward! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued harassment and insertion of libelous materials in Marc Sinden (per OTRS ticket 2010012610051858). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !

Oh won't you please consider joining WP:WikiProject Bacon? :)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing BOC

Little grape,have you looked at Barry O'Callaghan's page recently? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_O%27Callaghan

Seems there has been lots of additions, in the summary. Though can't see any references to back up the data. Is this something that should be reported?

Uptodateinfo (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Little grape. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Little grape. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Little grape. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)