User talk:Mholland/Archive 2

Thanks

Mholland, Thank you for fixing the photos in the Black Panther Party. PEACETalkAbout 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Universities in the United Kingdom

I replaced the regional templates because I think that the national template is much more useful as a navbox than the regional ones because it links all the UK universities rather than just the ones in a region. I think that many people who are looking at university pages will want to look at others in different regions, which is much easier to do with the UK template. The grouping in the template has remained regionalised so that by-region usage can be maintained. I have also formatted similar templates, like the research groupings, in the same style as numerous templates can appear on the one page, and each one had a different look and size etc making them look untidy (more and more navboxes across the site are using the same format). They also now collapse when there are more than 3 on the page to make the page look less cluttered. mattbr³⁰ 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Dave6 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! — mholland 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism edits

hmm, thank you. it looks like i was wrong! a couple of his other edits seemed somewhat nonsensical, so i guess i made the assumption of vandalism too quickly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.129.54 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

No problem. The trouble with the article is that it's difficult to verify the system in place in every country. — mholland 04:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Warren

Thanks for adding the additional sources to the Raymond Warren article. I have today added a third. Olebin 10:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Warren (2)

Hi, I have re-nominated the article for speedy deletion because I too believe that it meets the WP:BIO policy, even though its properly cited etc it still seems to be a biography of a person who seems to have none, or very little relevance to Wikipedia. Thanks for your co-operation and if you would like to speak about this matter anymore the please feel free to contact me on my Talk Page. I've voiced my opinion on the AFD (which is to delete it). Thanks for your help and happy editing.

Cheers.... Tellyaddict 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Warren (3)

Hi, apologies for my errors in dealing with this matter, but as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia I am still learning the ropes. I have read the discussion on the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page and there seems to be a general consensus of opinion forming that the subject is sufficiently notable. However of course I will abide by the eventual ruling, whatever that may be. Olebin 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect the article will be kept. There is quite a large corps of editors who like to assess newly created articles, and there's a lot of work out there for them, much of it unencyclopedic. Sometimes mistakes are made. You're entitled to express your own opinion on the AfD, by the way. Your view is as good as any other editor's. Happy editing. — mholland 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Aline Kilmer

• Thanks for pointing that out, must have overlooked it. —ExplorerCDT 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh um...ok?

That's fine, no big deal. :)

Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My recent edit

Sorry for my recent Edit to the wiki sandbox.

You do know it was only for a bit of fun, but sorry anyway for any misleadment.

--Mickyfitz13 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. Just be aware that if you remove or suppress the page furniture of the Sandbox, it makes it difficult for the page to fulfil its function. — mholland 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the tip.--Mickyfitz13 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks for taking the time to suggest some improvements on my editor review! All I can say is that the reason I gave Jackhaswell three warnings was because he vandalised my user page on three occasions but I can understand your point of view. Thanks and happy editing!! Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your measured response. I look forward to your RfA, should the time be right. — mholland 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

London Met

I work for the University and the abbreviation is London Met. NEVER LMU, which refers to Leeds Metropolitan University. I have therefore reverted your edit. 163.167.129.124 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are correct.

I mean, you said 'NEVER', in capitals.

Silly me for thinking otherwise.

I'm beating myself and in a hair shirt.

Can you tell?

etc. Please refer to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I understand that as an employee of the university, you are better aware of the official abbreviation, but Google suggests that the terms are used interchangeably. Please reconsider your edit in this light. If 'London Met' does have any official status, you are welcome to note that in the article. Please note also that while I will not dispute your edit by revert-warring, I may raise the issue with other editors. Thanks. — mholland 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Scarborough

I can sorta see where you want to go with the disambig page, but the encyclopedic source you claimed was unreachable (as I'm not a member of the page and whatnot), so I guess, if you want, you can change it, and we can see what people think of it. <3 bunny 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NLD

Defective PD or other "free" licenses are usually redirect to NLD/NSD while being debated, EG {{PD-NJGov}}. 68.39.174.238 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Crap, NLD used or (Or does on Commons) directed to {{No license}}. 68.39.174.238 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it might be something like that. I've never edited on the commons, so I didn't twig. — mholland 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

politics of Iraq

thanks. you did what I was trying to do--Vindheim 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. We both arrived there at the same time, I think, and I noticed one diff more. Cheers. — mholland 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Canadian universities

I put it on CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_20#Category:Canadian_universities. GreenJoe 05:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Good work. — mholland 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Merely wanting your opinion, since I agree with you that 1 nobody will add a comment anymore, 2 new perspective (neutral?) is badly needed. Would it be acceptable to post on Village pump and ask for outside comments?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So long as you're not soliciting for vote-stacking, I think you could raise it anywhere. Given that there's been little response from WP Pseudoscience, I don't know where else you might try. AfDs are occasionally relisted if there's insufficient discussion, so I trust that there will be some sort of clear outcome. I'm not going to involve myself one way or the other though – I'd rather wait and see if others do comment. — mholland 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to inform you. Was bold and posted a neutral request at village pump. Of course I understand and respect your wish to remove yourself from that discussion. Thanks.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bicol University

Hi Mholland, the article mentioned above was reverted again. I reported this article in the "WikiProject Universities" before you enhanced it but it was changed again. I don't know how to fix it nor I have the knowledge if I have the right to revert it and probably warn User:Liktrillanes. Hope you could take a look at this article. Again, thanks! Fddfred 06:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply - I spent a day offline, doing fun things! I notice you've gone ahead and reverted, which is always an editor's prerogative. I've left a note on Liktrillanes' talk page, but I don't think a warning is in order - I assume he's acting in good faith, but his text does need improving. He doesn't seem very talkative as a user, or expressive with edit summaries, but it might just be because nobody's said hello :)

If he reverts again, without discussion, then it might be appropriate to post a warning. Thanks for letting me know. — mholland 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to disturb you again. I'm a newbie here and I like to learn from you. Liktrillanes did it again and he left a message on my talk page which is quite... i don't know. I think i'm wasting too much time editing Wikipedia but the fact is, I'm learning a lot here, not to mention getting a lot of information from Wikipedia and... I like it. So, what should we do with the Bicol University article? Please go ahead and I will just watch and learn. Again, thanks a lot! Fddfred 04:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're within your rights to remove his message on your talk page as a personal attack. At least he's talking to you. If Bicol is on your watchlist, then calmly revert any further restorations of unsatisfactory text and warn the user with one of the template messages designed for that purpose. You could read up on WP:DR and follow guidance, but the bottom line is that if another user is uncommunicative and unresponsive to warnings, he'll eventually be blocked for vandalism. You may wish to place {{uw-npa1}} on User talk:Liktrillanes in relation to his message on your talk page, if you feel it was an attack.

Improving articles is generally a one-way street, and since it's quite easy to undo destructive edits, there's no need to pay much attention to them. Happy editing! — mholland 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try practicing putting those warnings to his talk page. This is fun!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fddfred (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Revert advice please

You very kindly reviewed the Altrincham page recently after I'd done quite a bit of work to try and get it into shape. Since then I've had the response of the review by User:AnonEMouse regarding the accusation by User:Jhamez84 that I was operating as a sock puppet on that page - which has thankfully concluded that the accusation was completely without foundation - and the pages which were the ones you archived have now been consigned to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars!

However, the changes I'd made to the discussion page (which I assume you were happy with) - incuding your comments - which resulted in the better organisation of new discussion and stimulating new input have now been reverted by User:Jhamez84 and I've commented on this on my talk page. One might draw all sorts of conclusions as to why this happened given timing and the outcome of the sockpuppet case and his explanation about that on my talk page. The revisions to the discussion page were maybe not strict wikipedia policy - but they were generating activity on an article which had been going nowhere for a long time. I'm concerned that I'm now being stalked/vandalised(?) by this editor who has already accused me of being a sockpuppet and who appears to be more concerned with what he perceives to be the rules than the actual purpose of wikipedia and the degree of latitude which I believe it allows. The reformatting is being discussed in the geography pages from the perspective of what needs to happen to encourage more people to contribute in the right sort of way. I don't believe there was anything about the revised format which would have broken the rules of wikipedia since the discussion could still be historical within the different sections. Could you please review and advise as I found you to provide very helpful advice before as to the organisation of this discussion page. I'm not into conducting 'revert wars' and have not reverted what he's done but wonder whether I should. Moreover, if this sort of thing carries on then I shall just stop contributing to pages in that area. Anyway - you seem much more well versed in wiki ways than me - what do you think is the best way forward?

(PS Does being a Gnome when you were in the Brownies count for gnomery purposes? And that's as close to being witty as per your request as I can manage right now!) Cosmopolitancats 10:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hullo. User:Jhamez84 does have some strong opinions regarding the geography of Greater Manchester, and from looking at his talk page, it would seem that he participates quite a lot in related arguments. I can see from your point of view that having an editor accuse you of being a sock just after a content dispute might seem like a grudge.

I must assume that he acted in good faith though, and was just a bit hot-headed in the middle of a dispute. There is, in fact, a loose grouping of users who, for POV-pushing reasons, like to go around promoting the Historic counties of England and removing material which suggests that entities like Greater Manchester even exist! Jhamez84 may have mistaken you for one of these. For what it's worth, I find that your contributions to Altrincham were wholly constructive.

Talk page arrangement

Jhamez84's last edit to Altrincham itself was over a month ago, so I think that what content dispute there was has now blown over. With regards the talk page, I have restored recent debates from the history (in chronological order), and I'll leave a note for Jhamez84 to that effect. I can see where he's coming from. The guideline WP:TALK describes the standard method of talk page organisation, which is universally accepted (if only by default). I was perfectly happy with your experimentation, though I can see how it might have initially confused other users, I think that your method was just as easy to deal with as the current one. One thing your arrangement would impede, though, is talkpage archiving - in a chronological format, it's easy to slice off the oldest discussions and archive them.

I respectfully suggest that you run with the status quo here, and create new discussions at the bottom of the page. Have you considered other ways of organising improvement efforts? You can arrange the To-do list at the top of the talk page by section, or create an article FAQ, to stop discussion going round in circles.

If you really want to return to your system, you'll have to come to an agreement with Jhamez84. In your favour, WP:TALK is only a guideline and your arrangement was only very subtly different in practice from the usual.

Personal dispute with Jhamez84

Wikistalking is a serious accusation to level. If I'm honest, I don't think that User:Jhamez84 has come anywhere near to stalking you. If you find a user following-up your edits to articles unrelated to Greater Manchester, that would be inappropriate. By contrast, summarily refactoring a talk page and making an accusation of sockpuppetry, as part of a related dispute, isn't stalking, it's just lashing out. Perhaps.

As with all disputes, the first step is to talk about it, and I'm glad to see you've done that on the other user's[ your ] talk page. I sort of think that a false accusation of sockpuppetry merits an apology from Jhamez84, but you've no right to demand one, and if he's going to be grumpy about it you can only forget about it and move on. Maybe you could do a bit of editing in areas where Jhamez84 isn't active? But please don't give up on editing in these areas altogether.

Keep up the good work. Best wishes — mholland 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and the archiving of pages. Acknowledgement noted and appreciated. I note the wiki designated officially lame debate continues - and in two places now! I'm going to be using my time to better effect on other pages. Thanks again. Cosmopolitancats 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham

Yes, my apologies. I did mean to attempt to reinstate some of the discussions, but it slipped my mind. I noticed most were by Cosmo - a user who caused mayhem on the Greater Manchester article - so thought most would not be missed.

However, thanks for the contact. The article does need a swift archive. Jhamez84 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WOAH! My mistake!!! I see he's back and above! I'm keeping out of this one!!!!! Jhamez84 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, mayhem is one way of putting it. But from where I'm sitting, Cosmopolitancats made seventeen edits to Greater Manchester in a single session on Feb 14, and was summarily reverted (quite rightly, in that case) by an anon. No further edits before or since. Bold? Yes. Mistaken? Probably. Mayhem? Probably not. I'm not taking sides here, but if Cosmopolitancats is a POV-pushing vandal, he/she's the least virulent one I've ever encountered. Thanks for your response, though. — mholland 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a minute please!... I used "Mayhem" jockularly, and have never accused this user of being a POV vandal (can you find a diff? Certainly not. So no need to suggest this thank you). With regards to Greater Manchester, bold - too much (nothing was inline with WP:MOS or any other style guide). Mistaken - given there are assertions on being local government specialists to circumvent WP:CITE, wholly. But I was not involved!!!! Several other users were, I merely messaged him to let him know where he went wrong.

That said, I sent a message to him quite politely to help him out, (see for yourself, its nothing nasty).

As for apologies, I have done. Again, please read his talk page as this appears to have been overlooked. The sock-puppet investigation mentioned above (i.e. suspicision - not an accusation) was brought against any and all new editors who sprung up out of nowhere on the Altrincham. Every editor bar Cosmo was a sleeper account and thus the investigation was justified in my opinion.

As I've said, anything else he does which is perhaps not appropriate - I'm staying well clear. But looking at the longwinded letters being posted by this user to circumvent policy as soon as anyone questions his perogative, I think there is a dispute waiting to happen - Talk page aside I've never even reverted one of his edits and I've had this!!!! Good luck. Jhamez84 00:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You seem to have acted entirely reasonably, as does Cosmopolitancats. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like there's nothing left to dispute. I don't find that Cosmopolitancats has been particularly victimised, so I'm content to go forth and spead the wikilove. Sorry if it seemed as though I was accusing you of anything. Cheers. — mholland 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am displeased with your efforts on the Altrincham article. Google is not a reliable sampling source at all - has it occurred to you that including Cheshire when searching for Altrincham will include billions of Census returns, multiplied for every ten years, for every site that offers them??? Is this some kind of provocation because another user has a vendetta against me for excersising policy? I thought edit stalking was a serious offence. Your sources do not qualify as reliable and is thus in breach of WP:A. Jhamez84 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Is this some kind of provocation because another user has a vendetta against me for excersising policy?"

No, this is not a provocation, and I don't believe that anyone has a vendetta against you. In fact, the other user (Cosmopolitancats) has claimed the reverse, with just as little provocation.

"Google is not a reliable sampling source"

I agree. I included the note on Talk:Altrincham merely as a very rough selection of evidence that people are still giving out their addresses as 'Altrincham, Cheshire'. You'll notice that I made no mention of Google in the sources I gave in support of the claim on the face of the article. Those sources were:

• National Health Service website
• National Rail website
• Altrincham Kersall RFC website
• Altrincham FC website

Now, perhaps you'd like to tell me which of those sources fails WP:RS? — mholland 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your filing cabinet

As I said, you shouldn't be claiming this as public domain. See the definition of a derivative work at [1]. Note that drawings based on photos, drawings based on drawings, etc., are counted as derivative works. As a derivative work of a GPL'd image, this should be GPL'd as well (and again, if the other image is a GPL violation, it should also be removed). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response on WP:AN#. Humble apologies if I'm mistaken. I still don't like the Crytal Clear image, though! — mholland 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'M SO MAD!

Thanks for editing my university of winchester pages and getting rid of the work i put in to write the content. I am a member of the university and there was no breach of copyright. there was no borrowing of images. some people make me so mad................ openmindedguy

I apologise if Wikipedia's strict observance of copyright law seems unfair. You may have made an effort to contribute, but both the text and the images you added were essentially copied and pasted from here, here and here. You may not think that it's a copyright violation, but it is, and in any case, text lifted verbatim from an institution's own website rarely meets Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Feel free to write about the developments, but do so in your own words, and cite the University's website as a source. Of the images you added, I would say that Image:Unicentre-pic1.jpeg would qualify as fair use next to a paragraph on the development, but the other two are quite large, and would, I think, fail Wikipedia's fair use policy. A fourth image you have uploaded, Image:Winchester-logo-left.png, I have already corrected the source/copyright status of. — mholland 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Petronas University of Technology

Thank you for pointing out my mistakes. I have sent my request to move the pages. Golvin 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. I'm afraid I may disagree with you about this particular move, however. And another user does too. Similar use of all-caps has been contested in the past, and although I can see a case in favour, I'm not sure I find it compelling. — mholland 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

No, you see the thing is that only thm two section are copyright violations, the rest is fine, I do know how to use the {{copyvio}} tag so I linked it to the homepage as it was two separate areas of the official website in which were copyrighted from, please tell me if you have any other comments.Tellyaddict 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where there is existing, non-copyvio content, procedure is to revert to an uninfringing version. Copyvio content goes into the page history, where readers won't see it, and if the copyright owner wants it removed, the offending versions can be removed from the history by an admin.

Template:Copyvio should only be applied to a blanked page. In addition, you should follow the instructions on the template itself, and log the alleged copyvio on the appropriate page (e.g. see today's page). — mholland 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, it is only Oversights who can hide revisions from a page history, not sysops.Tellyaddict 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Happy Holidays Mholland/Archive 2!! I wish you and your family a Happy and enjoyable Holiday and although its a little early I'm sure you will enjoy it!! Dont forget that its April Fools Day soon and I also hope you enjoy that as well. Happy editing and Kind Regards from Tellyaddict 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Queen's University Belfast

Removed. Thank you, Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary student unionism

Provided a cite for the PLO bit - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0377-919X(197423)4%3A1%3C176%3AASATC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E PMA 01:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP EDITING IMPERIAL COLLEGE

STOP editing 'prestigious' from the opening sentence. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself if you're from Imperial and you're trying to undermine the University's image as a prestigious institution.

I edited the 'males:female' ratio bit because it completely deters people from coming to Imperial. It's exactly comments like those that prospective students are dreading, and ultimately steer the path of their course towards another institution with more 'females'.

'Consistently' ranked top three in the country is a FACT - just because the Guardian gave a ranking of one '5th' does not deter from the fact that we CONTINUE to rank top 3 in the UK. If the statistics show that we consistently lie in the top 3, then keep it that way.

I hope you're not another Oxbridge student who's going on a mission to highlight differences between our institutions - we are every bit as prestigious as yours, you just have a long-living history which backs that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.170.20 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

My apologies if my editing at Imperial College London has offended you. I do, however, disagree with your assertion, on the article's talk page, that "we're trying to promote our University as amongst the best, and indeed one of the most prestigious universities in the UK". We're here to build an encyclopedia, and so we have adopted some core policies which aim to prevent bias or promotion of any kind. Please take a look at WP:NPOV and WP:COI. — mholland (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you took the time to go back and sort out the intro to Imperial College. I can't remember now how I was led to your user page, but saw this comment and thought I had to throw in my support with a quick note on the talk page over there. Be interesting to see the reaction... GDallimore (Talk) 08:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nottingham University Gliding Club (NUGC)

I've removed your deletion noticed from the NUGC article. I've described my arguments for doing this in the talk page. I hope the procedure has been correct and that you are satisfied by this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.176.62 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. I have nothing especially against the Club - it is one of a number of student societies at Nottingham which appear to be of borderline notability. There is a discussion at Talk:University of Nottingham#Daughter articles which prompted the proposed deletion, and a few others as well. I do not intend to move for a full deletion discussion myself, but you may wish to keep an eye on the article. It could do with a few sources in support of its notability; the current sources are mostly directory entries. — mholland (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

4'33"

Thanks for the advice; however, I am hardly a newbie here and I know there is not a reference after every sentence, so why this is such a bone of contention surprises me. However, I do see where the problem lies. Common sense alone tells us that 4'33" is a practical joke. Observation of the number of sources (including John Cage himself) claiming it to be serious music, and the number of users who have reverted me, is merely evidence of how many people do not realise it is a joke and hence how successful the joke has been. Wikipedia, however, is not the medium for the propagation of such humour, and until I am convinced otherwise I will continue correcting the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.101.238.34 (talk • contribs).

Please see replies to your last comments on my talk page. 59.101.238.34 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help wrapping up Tepper School of Business. I spent of good bit of time on it and it's nice to finally get it to GA status. I don't know if this is the type of topic that will easily move to FA status, so I am going to sit on it a little while, before trying to move it up even further. Any advice you can give on how to improve the article, and your continued assistance, is very much appreciated. PadreNuestro 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. If I think of anything, I'll raise it on the article's talk page. (Sorry for the slow response!) — mholland (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I love a cabal (sung to "I love a Parade")

I don't know if my heading was witty but I am trying to see the lighter side. Thank you for your thoughtful comments on my talk page. I do regret the warring and will do my best not to be sucked into a 3R situation.

I hope everyone has seen that I have (reluctantly) accepted the shorter version but the issue has changed since then. The "consensus" was for a particular version [2]. Upon gaining consensus, a different version [3] was inserted. The discussion is here at [4]. In fairness, I will add that several of the more minor changes were talked about on another talk page for another article, and somewhat of a consensus consensus was achieved for those. However a major change has been added that is not being defended. Here is the offending edit [5]. If you were an average wiki reader and were reading a quick summary of the authorship issue, wouldn't your one question be who else might have done it? at least the clear frontrunner? To delete this information - in this way - and only present the Stratfordian POV I think breaks the spirit of Widipedia. The line was there in the consensus version. To delete it was a bit underhanded.

Also - I don't think there is a cabal or conspiracy is going on. I checked the talk pages and there is no planning going on. All that I see is several of these editors slapping each other on the back and making derogatory statements about Oxfordians like me each time they are successful. The frustration I am experiencing is that these editors are all vehement Stratfordians who oppose the very existance of the subject. They are insisting on comparing the debate to Flat Earthers or Holocost survivors, thus labling it as a "fringe theory" and a "non question" and then using those labels to delete any material that furthers the debate. When a debate has so many notable proponents [6] and [7], do you think it is acceptable to label it "fringe".

I guess I thought that consensus was supposed to be a 'give and take' as you build. Unfortuantely, on the pages William Shakespeare and Shakespearean authorship question, these editors, are using the "consensus" standard to create a block, insisting on an ALL or nothing approach to their edits.Smatprt 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand and empathise with a need for respect for notable, honestly, reasonably held academic theories. It is not Wikipedia's business to deprecate or mock a theory, any more than it is our business to promote a theory. I cannot, however, see that anything of the sort has found its way into articlespace. I don't particularly endorse any of the talk page comments, but I do agree with the consensus formed about condensing the authorship section on that particular article.

In answer to your question, if I were just browsing, I'd click on the link to Shakespearean authorship question, which is a much better introduction to the subject than leaping straight into Oxfordian theory. My copy of the Oxford Companion to Eng. Lit., incidentally, has an entry for Baconian theory, but not one for Oxfordian theory (only one on de Vere himself) - I wouldn't agree, just from leafing through the textbooks, that Oxford is obviously the best candidate.

I remain of the opinion that provided no biases start appearing in Authorship Question articles themselves, that there is no problem. Via Template:Shakespeare, almost every page relating to Shakespeare has a link to both the Question page and the Oxfordian chronology. If others are being inflexible, it is because they are partially justified. — mholland (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your respectful response. I must say I am not used to it. And I appreciate your answers. Actually, a while back, a consensus was reached that acknowledged Oxford's front runner status, which is why these editors are only going after the Oxford issues. To my original inquiry, I would like to hear your opinion of the "extreme fringe" label applied today. When a debate has so many notable proponents [8] and [9], do you think it is acceptable to label it "fringe". Can you name any other "fringe" issue that has such a list of notable proponents?Smatprt 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gnosall

Do you know whose contribution the settlement size was on this page? As a resident, I can confirm that the population's higher than 5,000 - a lot closer to 7,000 if not even higher than that - and Gnosall Heath is a part of the village itself, at least in terms of postal code and address and administration by the health centre, school catchment areas, et cetera. I live there myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trialia (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

The figure 5,000 was added in September 2004, by User:Drw25, the original creator of the page. I would suggest that if the number is inaccurate, you should be bold and correct it. Even better would be if you can find an official number from somewhere and cite the source as a reference. You could also ask Drw25 where he got his number from. — mholland (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

why are you such a ....

twat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesmh2006 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Russell Group

Dear mholland,
Actually I didn't upload any image at wikipedia. All those images are being used at respective institution article page. If you have a visit at Imperial College London or Cambridge or Oxford page, then you can see those images. And, as far I know, those images got the permission to be used under fare use.

Anyway, I am trying to improve Russel Group article by taking Ivy League as a standard. If Ivy League article can use member universities logo, then why not Russel Group? Hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks and Regards,

Niaz bd 13:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use must be claimed for each individual use of an image on Wikipedia. An image may be fair use in one article but not on another. If you go to Image:Bham crest new.png, for example, you'll see that the image is listed as Fair use in University of Birmingham and an appropriate rationale is given for its use on that article. The boilerplate copyright tag also states: "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used."

Using a non-free image more than is strictly necessary exceeds the limits of the doctrine of fair use.

The short answer to your question about the Ivy League is that the gallery there is also not permitted. The crests and mottos section at Ivy League was added last month by an anon, and I have removed it in accordance with the same rule.

I don't enjoy having to remove this sort of stuff, and I support Wikipedia's use of fair use media in the interests of academic freedom, but fair use galleries aren't permissable and if you see any others you should remove them, or leave a note on the article's talk page. — mholland (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

UoB image

Thanks for that, I'd read the bits on the front & it didn't seem very logical, I can see the point abou the size of the image though.--Nate1481 (talk • contribs 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord Lawson of Beamish Community School

I apologize. Would it still be possible for me to make appropriate edits to this page at a later date? Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.156.40.82 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Constructive edits are always welcome. Thank you for responding. — mholland (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Savannah State University

Thank you for providing your assessments to the Savannah State University page.
Absolon S. Kent 15:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Puppet.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Puppet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not my image. Go for it. — mholland (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Bryan Duggan 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers. — mholland (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: University of Dundee

Hi. Just to let you know that the present situation here is already a compromise offered. I think there is a general consensus on the meaning of the infobox's tag and I don't see why information should be excluded when it is clearly with a political justification and not remotely on the basis of fact.

The 'consensus' Mais Oui discusses is nonsense as he and a couple of others, without ever seeking any sort of discussion (indeed, as you may have noticed from the talk page, avoiding it as best they can) go around editing and where anybody notices and cares they engage in these ridiculous edit wars. That certainly isn't consensus as I understand it, nor was there anything factually inaccurate with the original copy of the page. Thanks for trying to take a level-headed approach to the matter however. --Breadandcheese 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that there's absolutely no consensus behind Mais oui!'s preferred version. I am troubled only a little by putting Scotland in the state field - it was coded for U.S. states, and the international sort of equivalent is province, which is just as inaccurate for Scotland. I'm most used to seeing British counties in the state field, but Dundee is a unitary authority, so that wouldn't be suitable either. — mholland (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

please do not swap between name and native name

hello. i appreciate all your hard formatting, wikifying and categorising work, but please do not swap between the name and native name in the infobox of the "universiti teknologi petronas" a.k.a. "petronas university of technology" page.

please let me explain.

i do realise that this is an english language wikipedia. however, if you visit the university's offical english language website at http://www.utp.edu.my/ you will notice that "universiti teknologi petronas" is used on every page. this is because "universiti teknologi petronas" is the university's official name, used even in the english media such as official english documents (admission letters, approval letters, results slips, exam slips, certificates, etc.), english printed materials (monthlies, guidebooks, brochures, etc.) and english newspapers. "petronas university of technology" is more of a nickname, a name only commonly-used by english-speaking students. however, it has not been or is not commonly used in the english media.

however, regarding your statement that this is an english language wikipedia, why is it that sports clubs such as Sporting Clube de Portugal, Club Atlético River Plate, and A.C. Milan are left to their traditional native spellings rather than being translated from portugese, spanish and italian to english? anyway, i do not wish to argue over this matter. i do hope that you understand the reason "universiti teknologi petronas" comes first before "petronas university of technology".

having explained all that, is there any way you can change the article title to "universiti teknologi petronas"? if you can, please do so.

thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.49.127.72 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Neither term is especially common in English - I have never encountered the institution outside of Wikipedia. One is just a straight translation of the other. However, on the basis that there appear to be more English-language Google hits for the Malay, I have moved the page to Universiti Teknologi Petronas. If you would like to register an account, you can move pages like this yourself in future.

The infobox, however, I have left as is: the name in the name field should always be an English-language translation, except where the foreign-language version is universally used untranslated by English speakers. — mholland (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template deletion

Hi there, CattleGirl. A couple of these deleted navboxes are still being called by a few articles ([10] [11]). I've just tidied up residual transclusions of the related A38-settlement navboxes: do you know if there is a deletion review forthcoming here or can I go ahead and tidy up after these deletions? — mholland (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mholland,

Sorry, I didn't realise. I'm not sure about deletion review just yet, I'll have to wait for a reply from Excellentone. Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 09:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

University of York

Hia, I noticed that you removed a number of links to entities associated with the University of York. I see your point re "linkfarm" - but there is no link to them on the main York site, and they are very well known campus institutions (I attended from 1998 to 2001). I have therefore taken the decision to restore the links. Parmesan 12:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being in touch. Perhaps I was hasty in removing them. I'll not remove them a second time, but I do question the value of the links to the TV and radio stations - the target sites contain very little material relevant to the University itself, and don't add any encyclopedic value. — mholland (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

stop vandalizing the wittenberg university page

please stop vandalizing the wittenberg university page. Please refer to the discussion page for any questions you may have about secret societies at the school before removing the information about them or you will be reported for vandalism.

Hi there. Please be assured that I mean no harm to the article Wittenberg University. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot accept material that is unreferenced: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (per WP:V). I have left a message on the article's talk page. — mholland (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point of the secret societies at Witt is that no one knows much about them. I'll look for archives in the school paper, but here are a couple sources about the shifters [12] (that mentions an alumni who was a shifter) [13], ( http://www6.wittenberg.edu/lib/witt_pubs/torch/search.php?database=torch&fields[]=subject&terms=Shifters ) it won't let me do a proper link, but that is an index of the shifters in the school paper. I'll see if I can find better sources for the other ones in the paper. Morhange 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want us to write a freaking pamphlet?!? I'm a student here, secret societies do exsist and all the societies on this page are present and known by the students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.209.225 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As a member of a secret society at Wittenberg I am privy to insider information about some of these groups. I can verify to the best of my knowledge on the behalf of my society, that the information currently on the website is correct. Please stop interfering in a matter of which you can have no real knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witttruth (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wittenberg University section on secret societies really frustrates me. I was not a member of any secret society but referring to societies other than the Shifters and the Wizards is obsurd. From my friends and my point of view, the Shifters are something everyone is curious about and the Wizards are a group that everyone wants to party with. I'm impressed the gnomes have stayed around this with no basis behind their existence and as for the others, what a crock!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.177.225.105 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You sound like an idiot, and you're obviously not very observant. There are many many societies here on campus, you're just too busy hero worshipping the wizards to see it!!! Have fun partying with them, hope you don't end up... you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witttruth (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

you obviously haven't been on campus for a while, as the shifters are still around, the wizards are in hiding following an incident last year. the gnomes are still around, and the knights were around 2 years ago but just recently made a reappearance. as for the other ones that keep getting added they are completely false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.214.182 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the term troll (in internet lingo)? At first I thought you were someone bitter over not getting tapped into one of the witt society's, whether it was the shifters, wizards, bolts, gnomes, village, Knights, or alchemists, all of whom exist. I can't count the number of times I see a paper clip, rainbow, duct tape patch, zodiac symbol, washer, plastic sword or roach clip on a fellow student. Then I see you've never been a student or alumni. I doubt you've ever even been here since I see you were trolling on other pages besides Wittenberg. You clearly know nothing about secret societys, judging by the comments you made about your changes. Good Lord, you're annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittykittykat (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitty kat hit it right on! GET A LIFE MHOLLAND AND GET OVER THE FACT THAT WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS COLLEGE YOU HAVE NEVER STEEPED FOOT ON! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morhange v2 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

mholland...you're an ass fuck off and die! this has noting to do with you and you are missrepresneting this campus...people like you are the reason wikipedia cannot be cited as a good source...cuntface —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealbessy (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglia Ruskin University

Please would you post any comments that you have on the editing of Anglia Ruskin University's wiki to the discussion page of the article itself. Many thanks.Mrsradcliffe23 13:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. — mholland (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ARU

Thank you for your contribution to ARU's talk page and your reinstatement of the glasgow bomber link. It is outrageous that it was removed after the fact was so widely disemminated in the press, eg the guardian! Thanks again for helping to make wikipedia a source of neutral fact and to stop the supression of information. Thank youMrsradcliffe23 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox University transclusions reply

I agree, it probably would be easier, more elegant and above all quicker to edit the template, however I am not experienced enough to edit something that technical. If you know how to edit it then by all means revert mine, I just did it because I think this is a better layout. Algebra man 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cranfield

Excellent improvement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cj1340 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandstone Unviersities

I don't understand why the table was deleted. why?Sandstoner 10:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. When I removed the table, I gave the edit summary "no added value". What I meant was that the table didn't really add anything to the article, beyond being a repeat of the list of members. External links in the main body of an article aren't encouraged (per the Manual of Style). Because the group is only informal, I didn't think that a table of comparable statistics (like the one at, e.g., Ivy League) is necessary or suitable. — mholland (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

University of Reading

(From User talk:Sol89)

Appologies, I was just trying to update the entry with the new logo as the one that was there was the old one. I'll make a note of it, thanks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sol89 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

No problem. Happy editing! — mholland (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

SUNY New Paltz

Thanks for the advice on the COIN page re this matter. I added that to the discussion. Bearian 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Red brick and Reading

Hi.

Along with another set of changes I agree with, you reverted my removal of the fact tag on the assertion that Reading is a 'red brick' university. I had removed this with the comment:

(removed fact tag from 'red brick' claim; whether Reading is or is not a red brick university is extensively discussed on the linked page.)

Your reversion carried the comment:

(Rem. "red-brick" claim from intro - Wikipedia is not a reliable source; ...)

I think you misunderstood my removal. I wasn't citing the Red brick universities page as a source (indeed by definition WP cannot be a source for itself); I was suggesting that as the bulk of the text on whether Reading was or was not a red brick was at that page, the correct place for WP to cite its sources for that claim would be there. Otherwise there is a danger of contadictory definitions and cites in the two articles.

By adding your own link to red brick and associating it with Whiteknights Park, you have (I'm afraid) fallen exactly into that trap. The gist of the definition of red brick in Red brick universities is such that it would not apply to Whiteknights, but would plausably apply to London Road, which was the only University of Reading site during the period in which the article alleges 'red brick status' was acquired. And the cite you have attached uses 'red brick' in a completely different and very much more literal sense.

The result is that we now two linked articles with conflicting definitions of red brick. How do you suggest we sort this out without getting into a revert war. -- Chris j wood 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think linking the phrase "Reading is a red-brick university" to a page which discusses whether it is or isn't is a non-starter. I googled for sources and found this page which asserts that Foxhall House, on Whiteknights Park, is made of red bricks (and more relevantly, was designed by the red brick architect Alfred Waterhouse). If Whiteknights definitely isn't red brick, but London Road might be, we need a better source.

The root of the problem is that Red Brick universities is wholly unsourced, and possibly OR. I would suggest that a start would be to get the Red Brick article sourced and then refine the claim on the Reading page to match. I'll see if I can find some sources for the Red Brick article. You are welcome to remove the bit I added to University of Reading. — mholland (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Red Brick universities does need more references. Actually it did have a couple of informal source statements in the text, and I've converted these into formal book cites using the WP ref construct. I've therefore replaced your unreferenced tag with the refimprove tag. But I havn't (yet) located either of the books, so I'm not sure how much use they are in citing more than just what one guy thought. -- Chris j wood 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I created Edgar Allison Peers last night, which may worth reading. He did coin the term. Unfortunately, we won't find a magic list in his book, nor a set of criteria. At the time of writing it, the only Universities in Britain were the Ancient universities and the modern universities, mostly Victorian and mostly brick, as opposed to the stone of the Ancients.

Peers used the term to denigrate the modern institutions, arguing that the Ancients were in the business of extending knowledge by research, but the red-bricks were just distributing knowledge to lots more people. I can't tell you why he thought this, because I haven't read the book, and it's not possible to draw up a list of red-bricks based on Peers's criterion, because most Victorian universities now consider themselves research institutions anyway.

A lot of the present article still reads like nonsense to me. E.g. "The smallest and latest university to achieve "Red Brick" status is the University of Leicester". As if red-brickness is a quality that can be acquired in any objective sense. — mholland (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edgar Allison Peers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done, after all the discussion above, you have a moment in the sun. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — mholland (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

School of Oriental and African Studies

how is soas being a leading university an unverifiable claim just how do u claim to verify details??? how can u claim imperial is better than the LSE itself and say its in the top 3 in the country.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.99.176.127 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi there. Please be assured that I mean no disservice to SOAS, which is an excellent institution, like many other UK universities. In general, I would say that being a "leading university" is a vague and biased claim which no Wikipedia article on any university should contain. It is official policy that articles should contain only neutrally-presented information that's attributed to verifiable, third-party sources. In this case, it means that quoting a specific ranking is okay, but calling SOAS or LSE "prestigious", "leading" or "highly-ranked" in general is not okay. If you find any other articles which make unsourced claims like those, you should remove them, or leave a note on the article's talk page – that way, all of our content is neutral and free from academic boosterism. — mholland (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Editorial of the University of Canberra

Editorial on the Wikipedia page of the University of CAnberra is restricted to: UC Marketing Communications, specifically, Director of Marketing (Meredith Jackson), Brand Manager (Tiffany King) and Media Manager (Ed O'Daly). All other changes require approval from the University.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiffking2615 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Hi there. I notice that another editor has already referred you to WP:OWN and our policy concerning conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's one of our core principles that anybody can edit any article. Please be advised that while other editors should treat you and your contributions with respect, it is frowned upon for editors to contribute exclusively to articles on organisations they represent.

You may find that your edits are scrutinised especially heavily by other editors. Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict content guidelines, and not a neat marketing channel. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

'University' of Bedfordshire

Thanks for improving that page. I wonder, however, if you missed 'a small number' in the 'reputation' section. No problem if you left it there deliberately:)

thanks

Alfred Vella 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rudder Statue.JPG

Hi, I read your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Texas A&M University. Thanks for the support for the FA! Regarding the picture, I'm the uploader/photographer of it. To what size should I resize it to so that it meets the WP:NFCC? (What would be considered "low resolution"?) BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure. That's why I tagged it for {{fairusereview}}. It's a derivative of a copyrighted 3D-work, so policy says it should be shrunk to the minimum size necessary. Since the recent fair-use crackdown, it has been suggested that 300 pixels on the longest side usually strikes the right balance (such an image is always less than 0.1 megapixel), but fair use content can be larger, so long as it's justified in the rationale. In the case of the statue, I'd say fair use would extend to the minimum size it would have to be for you to recognise the subject clearly, or just large enough to make out the text on the plinth.

If nobody at Fair Use Review has a better idea, I'd say that the image should be reuploaded under the same filename at about 400-500px tall and then tagged with {{Non-free reduced}}. It's a shame, because in the UK, for example, freedom of panorama covers photographs of statues displayed in public (like this one) and there's no need to go hobbling otherwise perfectly good images. — mholland (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reduced the size to where the text on the plinth is legible, as you suggested. The review didn't show up on the fair use review page, so I removed that template and went ahead and tagged it with the non-free reduced template. Looks like whoever is in charge of that is taking care of it. I also asked the help desk about the image, and got this response. I agree though, it is definitely a shame that freedom of panorama doesn't cover public statues. Anyhow, thanks for the advice!! BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

All seems good. Thanks for taking the time to adjust that. Happy editing! — mholland (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anne Tismer image

Hi, and thanks for your message. You say you have "tagged Image:Anne Tismer is Nora.JPG (currently used at A Doll's House) as being in need of a fair use rationale. I'm not certain that a valid rationale can be drafted in this image's case: as a photograph of the actress it would be considered replaceable, and it is not readily identifiable as a photograph of the character, Nora. It could equally be Hadda Gabler or Ophelia. Additionally, the image lacks a source identifying the copyright holder, and it is quite large, likely failing the third non-free content criterion."

I'd appreciate it if you could reread what you have written and then tell me what you want me to do now (except give up all hope). Best wishes, <KF> 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure the image is worth including at all (and the missing-rationale tag is a deletion tag, if no rationale is supplied). If you're of the opinion that the image depicts a notable or well-known rendition of the play (it's possible: I understand that Anne Tismer is a well-known German actress, but I've no particular expertise in this sort of area), then add a rationale explaining the iconic nature of the image and how it meets all of the relevant criteria ({{Non-free use rationale}} is useful for that). It would also be appropriate to re-upload the image at a lower resolution (300px on the longest side is a suggestion) and then delete the old revision. Alternatively, you are at liberty to do nothing, and an admin that enjoys/participates in deleting unlicensed images that don't meet the non-free content policy will delete it in a few days.

I visited and nominated the image because an anon removed it from A Doll's House in good faith. — mholland (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I guess I'll do nothing: At the time I uploaded the image I thought it illustrated the article, but I can see now that there are too many problems connected with it. All the best, <KF> 20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RAE

Thanks for clearing that up :). Jpowell 22:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers. — mholland (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moving articles via cut and paste

Hello, I actually didn't do any cut-past stuff rather I tried to restore the original article. American International University - Bangladesh is the original name of this university and AIUB is its abbreviation. We are trying to improve its quality from WikiProject_Bangladeshi_Universities. At Wikipedia, American International University - Bangladesh - this link holds original article and AIUB holds a redirect. Day before yesterday, one of our newly registered (compare to others) members copied whole text to AIUB and left a redirect in American International University - Bangladesh. I just changed his edits and made it as it was previously. Thanks for your concern in Bangladeshi university articles. Niaz bd 00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you acted in good faith. Putting the article back at American International University - Bangladesh was the right thing to do. But you did perform a cut and paste. User:Munimbuet used the move tab to transfer the article and its history from one title to another. Instead of using the same tab to move the article back, you copied the text from the latest revision of the article and pasted it over the redirect at the old title. This is harmful to Wikipedia, because it is a condition of Wikipedia's license that the page history must be properly maintained. See WP:MOVE for instructions on the correct procedure for moving a page, and WP:SPLICE for help when you are unable to perform a move yourself. The article now appears 'fixed', because User:Maxim has performed a history merge.

Please read that carefully: the correction you made to American International University - Bangladesh was improperly carried out, and you should not do the same again. It's not a very big deal, but it does sometimes require admin intervention to fix. — mholland (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry for what I did. I forgot to use the move option. I promise you, in future this mistake will not be repeated. And thanks again for warning me and keeping me on the track. Niaz bd 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; it's nothing to be sorry about. Thank you for your continuing good work. — mholland (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks

Thanks for the NOTE, actually I am new here, and I want to learn. I will follow your suggestion next time. It is ok for any member here to revise my edits since this will improve wikipedia articles, by TIME I will learn more.

Regards.

--Florentino floro 12:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — mholland (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UofT Heraldic Arms.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:UofT Heraldic Arms.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot, we meet at last! Not my image, has been replaced with a better image, Image:Uoft crest.png. Admins should feel free to delete it. — mholland (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your argument

Thanks for your argument at World Universities Debating Ranking. Actually this is the only ranking followed by the debating arena. As debating federations are not well organized they usually do not maintain any official registered site but they maintain web-blogs. Can we consider those blogs as third party reference? If so, then I can show you as many supporting references as you want. Please let me know. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

about the banner

thank you for telling me the proper technique, i went ahead and took the seal into Photoshop and created a fully original logo, not hard to do with a standard font. i just was curious how UVa gets by with a logo on theirs and i cannot. thanks UkrNole 485 00:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The School of Computing (RGU)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The School of Computing (RGU), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School of Computing (RGU). Thank you. Carlossuarez46 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Buckinghamshire Chilterns UC logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Buckinghamshire Chilterns UC logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Buckinghamshire Chilterns UC logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Buckinghamshire Chilterns UC logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Input needed

Hi M,
Sorry to bother you but in the past you have voiced you opinion on some TfDs that were similar to one that is up for TfD now.

Do you think that you could voice your opinion at the TfD for {{Infobox Town TR}}? It is located at WP:TfD under October 31st.

Thanks,—MJCdetroit 04:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

David Southall

Your own segment on David Southall is a biased representation of the facts within the case in question. I simply wished to correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.49.32 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

zico

Thanks for removing international office addresses in London Metropolitan University Article. I did not notice that wikipedia is not directory. Thaks for your advice. It helps me to edit other article with that advice. I have added only city name and country in that section. I hope that is perfect for wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashiqur Rahman 87 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)