User talk:Daytona2

Please do not use the "Plus" button above I like to keep my discussion together, so please start on my talk page but, If I start a discussion with you on your Talk Page, please respond to it there because: Your talk page will be on my watchlist for a while, maybe forever. It is easier to keep track of and respond. If you start a discussion here, I will only respond here, so you might want to watch this page. I am fed up jumping back and forth!! Thanks !

Daytona2 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Daytona2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I think you might need to check the date Fleetwood Mac left Benifold, John. I reckon they were gone by 1975. What's the evidence for 1989? John Owen Smith 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this discussion, has your friend posted any other maps online?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for trying.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to bring up a concern I have in regard to your signature. I don't know if you know, but there is a User:John and your current signature is exactly the same as his. I think it'd be best if you changed it. You could perhaps add a last initial or something. -- John Reaves 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Feel free do to what you like with your sig (within reason). I just don't want it to appear as if you are misrepresenting your self. Personally, I prefer a simple sig, but the choice is up to you. -- John Reaves 19:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening to block people for correcting misspelled words. That's just unacceptable. -Animesouth 06:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word you corrected was 'corrupt'. Calling someone corrupt is defamatory and is against WP guidelines Wikipedia:Libel. You chose to make the libel clearer, rather than remove it. Given the previous warnings you have received I did not assume good intent. I have posted details on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - [1] for them to review. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 11:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid the world 'vandal'. To accuse me of vandalism for a spelling correction is libel on your part. -Animesouth 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Have had to time to talk this matter over with some others on IRC. The view seemed to be that is was not

that big an issue provided link removals are not mistakenly flagged as minor from now on.

You are more than welcome to reinstate any links that were removed in haste (provided of course that they are indeed genuine, non copyio clips of course :) ), and in fact a review of any large scale link removal in general would be recommended. I'd also strongly recommend leaving a rationale on the talk page as to why in the case of reinstated links the clip concerned is acceptable. Hopefully that should prevent future hasty removals.

'Removals' subsequent to your heads up SHOULD be flagged as major edits, and in most cases I've tried to leave a talk page comment relating to them on the relevant discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit on Harold Macmillan‎. As this is an issue that doesn't seem to have a clear solution, I've raised the point at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Name to use in name field to see if there's any clarity on this matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the article must be merged probably with Exchange rate or a closely-related article. There was several type of votes with some keeps, merges, deletes, etc in the afd so there was no consensus to delete this article despite over 2 weeks of discussion but I could certainly start a merge discussion in that talk page if needed.

Otherwise it could go to Wikipedia:Deletion review--JForget 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a merger with currency pair. See the talk page --JForget 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've saw those messages elsewhere. Thanks. --JForget 18:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you removed a sentence from the article. Interested to hear why it is that particular site is not considered a reliable source.Buffalo Bill talk to me 10:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you think that lib.com is not reliable source. The statement that it supports was 'organizations representing couriers often accuse the employers of manipulating employment law to keep overheads down.' Joe went back and added a whole bunch of supporting refs for that, not just the one you had a problem. In actual fact, the web article that you had a problem with is a reproduction of something that was published in real life, 'The couriers are revolting' ISBN-10: 1873605676, so there shouldn't be too much question that it really exists.

I don't understand why you undid messville's revision, as it cites reliable sources for the statement. So I am going to revert your edit.Buffalo Bill talk to me 22:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful contributions to this entry. I may not have welcomed all of your edits, but on reflection I can see that your input has improved the article. Buffalo Bill talk to me 16:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me please? You made an entry on my talk page about an article I wrote called Langbar International Limited. For some reason that article has been deleted without any reference to me or notification or any history of it being deleted. The last time I recall checking on the site was before 16 December 2007.

I suspect that the article may have been deleted because of a legal dispute. The case is presently before the High Court in London. Other references to the case remain on connected Wikipedia articles and I would like to know why Wikipedia is 'censoring' without contacting the authors to explain why.

There is no point in having an online encyclopedia created by voluntary contribution, if correct and verifiable articles are to be removed without any discussion or debate. Can you tell me why Wikipedia deleted the article and/or tell me how I can restore the article please? (Nigelpwsmith (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have now been informed that the article was deleted because of duplicate references and they have cited your message of 19 November 2007 as the reason the entire article was taken down, rather than edited. This is yet another puzzle as all the references were correct. Yes they were multiple references, but then the factual material has been published by many newspapers.

They also suggest that the text is copyrighted, but ignore the fact that the owner of the copyrighted image and text is none other than myself - and that I have made the material copyright free for Wikipedia.

So yet again we seem to have some problem for which Wikipedia has used the 'nuclear' option and unfairly obliterated a factual document.

Can you tell me how to restore this article please? {Nigelpwsmith (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Please explain why you felt that the current event tag was not relevant, and why you removed my change - thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is mainly used when there are a lot of edits to a page and the content is likely to change considerably. If you are referring to the repeat of "Who do you think you are?" on BBC2 TV this morning, I think that this is not important enough for such a tag, and in any case there has only been a few edits to the page today. Snowman (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, as an edit conflict had occured at least twice within minutes, why was the tag irrelevent ? What has the importance or otherwise of the TV programme got to do with it ? Now an answer to my second question would be appreciated, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts happen quite often, it was just a coincidence at that time, it would not have happened again, if you had edited that page every five mins for the last 3 hours. The "current event" has passed now and the tag should be removed anyway. I thought that your point that he was brought up in Worcestershire was not well made. He would have lived with his parents in Yorkshire prior to going to school. I guess he would have started that school (probably a boarding school) at age 5 or 7, and then he moved on the another school in Surrey, which was mentioned in the same sentence. Where he was brought up is quite complex, as he moved to several locations as a child. He also talked about Yorkshire on TV. I know that JP, said that he was brought up in Worcestershire in the TV program, but it was a statement made in jest, I thought. Snowman (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... your opinions differ from mine. I rarely have edit conflicts and have never had two on a single edit (edit-preview-conflict-merge-preview-conflict-merge-save). As such I felt that the current tag acted as useful warning for anyone else, ie what it's designed for. Sure, it should be removed once the liklihood of conflicts diminishes. I thought that his comment about being brought up in Worcestershire was made in the same tone as his other autobiographical comments - I didn't think that it was made in jest, given that I think that it's up to you to come up with some overriding proof to justify the removal. -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 10:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was brought up in Yorkshire up to school age? I have nothing else to say at this juncture. Snowman

Biographies of living people need to be accurate. The existing reference number four (on the line you edited) says that he grew up in Yorkshire. I think that I have given a full explanation of why I changed your edit, so I am puzzled why you had to change it back. I plan to ask an administrator for another opinion; however, you might like to change it back yourself. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're puzzled; we both agree (above) that he said he was brought up in Worcestershire. I have chosen to take his words literaly; you have chosen to make a pov interpretation that he didn't really mean it. As your previous comment cited no source I presumed that it was opinion. If we had a detailed autobiographical account of the locations, it would be convincing evidence one way or another. As it is, we appear to have a conflict between a primary (Paxman) & secondary source (a journalist), given that, it is my contention that some highly accurate and credible evidence needs to be produced to override the former, which I don't believe you have produced. I'm perfectly happy for admin involvement and perhaps this debate should now be moved to Talk:Jeremy_Paxman with a link back to here. -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the TV program I feel sure that he was jesting and commenting at a tangent to where his family history really belonged to. The remark needs to be put in context, and putting spoken remarks in context is not always POV, in my opinion. He also jests in the program, which is recorded in the reference listed by Kay Hayward, when he seems to be pursued that he is not a Yorkshire man and is a Suffolk boy instead. I am perfectly willing to start discussion on the article talk page.Snowman (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you feel has no place in an encyclopedia. It's difficult to understand what you propose, taking WP guidelines into account, without an example - put it on the talk page where anyone who's interested can pick it over. -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 14:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a comment in context can often have a lot of agreement. Reference 4 has been on the page a long time as a source for the line you edited. There is a another opinion now on the JP talk page with some discussion, which anyone can contribute to. I have made an administrator aware of this discussion and asked him to watch the JP page. I have nothing else to add at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have significantly reduced the article in my opinion, the paragraph on Education was informative and was not merely a list of statistics. How it contravened the '5 pillers' I have no idea. Paste (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree completely with your comments on various AfDs. The volume of AfDs like Meredith Kirscher, Natasha Collins et al is getting unbearable. Do you know how one goes about producing a new Notability guideline? I imagine it takes ages and is not fun. Jdcooper (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so it's you who has been so keen to "revert" my additions on the Duke. I wonder why? I mean I've made other changes to the biographies of living people, no problem. An example (today) is Hugh Wyatt. As for the Duke, well his qualification as a Chartered Accountant is in Who's Who. There is no such thing as a Deputy Lieutenant of Sussex: it's West Sussex. And the fact that he was Lord Lieutenant between 1990 and 1994 is on the page of the main article in any case. So I'll put in this "additional information" again tomorrow, adding "Who's Who" as a source. Let me know if that's a problem, OK? Millbanks (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article history tab you will be able to see who's editing and why - [2]. In each case I commented "See Wikipedia:Citing sources" as the reason, because you had provided no sources in breach of one of the core Wikipedia guidelines, that of verifiability, and even more so for biographies of living persons (BLP). After the third attempt I issued a warning, so that's the reason why. "Who's Who" is a reliable reference, but Wikipedia itself is not, as explained in the aforementioned link. If you haven't alredy, please familiarise yourself of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, a "warning" for a) correcting an inaccuracy; and b) putting in already well known information from Who's Who about the Duke being a Chartered Accountant and the Lord Lieutenant for four years. Why the bee in your bonnet? You haven't moved to change my additions elsewhere. Millbanks (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting my comments. I gave a warning for persistently ignoring one of the core Wikipedia guidelines, that of verifiability. As for the 'bee in my bonnet', like others, I have some articles on a watchlist which alerts me to changes. The reason I haven't changed your additions elsewhere is that I do not watch all the articles you edit. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about this: i) He is already mentioned on the page as having been Lord Lieutenant of West Sussex, 1990-94, so the omission from the main article is not really a problem; ii) Presumably you accept that the Duke is a Chartered Accountant, but if you don't want it mentioned, fair enough; iii) The reference to "Deputy Lieutenenat of Sussex" as opposed to West Sussex is an error, but not a major one, so if you'd be happier for the page to contain that inaccuracy, that's a pity, but hardly significant. Now please could you remove the stuff you've put on my talk page. Millbanks (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i) If you look on the Lord Lieutenant of West Sussex page, a reference is provided which you can use to justify the change. ii) I've no idea whether the Duke is a chartered accountant; if you comply with Wikipedia:Citing sources I'm more than happy to believe it. iii) If you look on the Lord Lieutenant of West Sussex page, a reference is provided which you can use to justify the change. I've removed the mirror of this conversation on your talk page, I was copying a technique used by another editor I was talking with, but I agree that it's overkill when it's just as easy to watch someone else's page as your own - my apologies. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have removed the external link to the Costas Lapavitsas interview from the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis article. You cite the reliability of the source as a problem.

The source in question is a senior lecturer in economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, one of London's most prestigious universities. He has also written two substantial books on finance.

I think he is at least as reliable a source as Yuliya Demyanyk, Otto Van Hemert, Paul Krugman, Michel Lazare, Allan Sloan, Fortune and the Economist. Please consider either removing their links or reinstating the one I added. Thanks.

Piquant (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's problematic because Lapavitsas is described in the article as "a leading Marxist economist" and the article is from the International Socialism journal. Until your addition of this link, the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis article contained no alternative political view which required balancing per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, in fact it contained no political view. Your only edit was to add this link, so it was not prompted by a discussion on any political issue which may have made it valid. The external link itself was, imo, the least helpful and credible, written by a person of less credibility (a senior lecturer in economics, University of London), than the other contributors - Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Princeton University (professor & noted scholar), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Fortune, Economist Intelligence Unit (The Economist Group). I believe that external links have to comply with the WP guideline on reliable sources, and I felt that it failed.

That covers the individual edit. As far as your other edits go, I noted that you do little other editing apart from adding links to articles in the International Socialism journal. It seems to me as if you are not interested in balanced editing but rather are pushing one particular point of view. My only question is the extent to which external links are covered by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. To this end I requested that admins examine the issue here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Political_spam_links_.3F.

As Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

I note that there are several conversation occuring about this issue, presumably as a result of my WP:ANI post, so to aid communication, I will copy this whole thread on to your talk page and would prefer to continue any discussion there. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hello John. I came across the entry a few days ago trying to get more info on what Blogads did. It was horrendous. I checked the discussion page, and someone seemed to agree: "Not that i'm going to do anything about it but this is the worst article I've ever seen on WIkipedia. It is worthless, and I would suggest it for deletion if I knew how to." The article was all fluff, poorly organized, didn't provide any concrete info; it sounded like a poorly-written press release. I tried to do a quick overhaul and took information from their website and basic NYTimes and Google searches as references. I removed other refences as since they were employed in a manner that seemed to simply provide conjectural support to Blogads importance, which, as it turns out, was not conjectural. However, after the deletion flag was raised, I reexamined these references from major publications (Business Week, Wall Street Journal), and did a more extensive search, yielding additional articles from The New York Times and Chicago Tribune. As it's been covered fairly frequently, and with varying degrees of depth (the Business Week and Chicago Tribune articles go fairly in depth and provide interviews with Henry Copeland), all establishing its continued viability and importance to Netroots, Blog Networks, Blog Advertising, etc, I feel that it certainly fits qualifications for notability as defined herein: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I think the new revision asserts its significance on the subject and fixes the problem of past versions, ie them being full of marketing speak and press-release-like jargon without a solid case for significance. 38.98.97.90 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Bob[reply]

It would have been easy to add a first warning see - Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, as it is, you haven't met the following criteria in the AIV instructions at the top of the page - "The vandal is active now, and has vandalised after sufficient warnings to stop.". Please respect the Wikipedia:Vandalism guidelines. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs)

• Thank you, but i already knew that.
  
  I have been reporting to WP:AIAV a lot longer then today, and i know that reporting without warnings is a "No-Go". However, the nature of the vandalism meant it would slip past all the vandalism filters. Hence, it was some major luck that i ran into this persons edits, as they would have normally gone right past me.
  
  Why i didn't just add warnings then? In this case, it was a matter of time. Personally i had a meeting at (Report time - 5 minutes) which meant that i could not watch this users activity any more. I ended up just filing an AIAV report with the reasoning that 1.5 hours would be recent enough to see this user return, and that if he would have kept up his previous edit rate, the damage could be extensive as it would go right past the filters. In short, this was more of an "Keep an eye out on this one" then an actual plea to block at once (Even though i believe that two of these offences should be enough to warrant a block).
  
  I hope this explains the dubious nature of the report a little bit, and with kind regards,
  --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please stop changing her birthdate to 1980. She was in my class at school - born less than a month after me in 1979. That's NINETEEN SEVENTY-NINE. Why are you insisting she was born in 1980? You're just plain wrong and you shouldn't keep changing it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.210.178 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in each of the edit summaries [4], see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Knowing her isn't enough for Wikipedia due to the possibility of deliberately false information being entered, which happens not infrequently - why should anyone trust another voice on the internet ? Sorry, but you need to provide a reference for verification. I'm happy for you to remove the 1980 date until you can provide proof. BTW using IP addresses rather than an account makes it difficult to communicate as your address and talk page keeps changing. Hope this explains things. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. What, therefore, is your "reference" for her birthdate being 1980? It won't be as sound as having gone to school with her... I don't mean to be shirty, but your repeated (false) claim that she was born in 1980 is more spurious than my (true) assertion that she was born a little over a fortnight after me. I was at her house on her fourteenth birthday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.210.178 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, a quick Google turned up the following reference: http://www.encyclocentral.com/8707-Caroline_Flack.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.210.178 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact - would like to give me another, single example on the whole of Wikipedia of a date-of-birth being referenced????! It's fact. End of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.125.93.52 (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dobs are often verified by the general references, from [auto]biographies and in depth articles. BTW I didn't add the dob which was added by an IP poster in Nov '06 here - [5]. I found this from the Eastern Daily Press -

"13 November 2007"

"Today's her 27th birthday, but party girl Caroline Flack won't have the luxury of a Saturday morning lie-in to recover from the celebrations. From 6am tomorrow she'll be at the television studios putting the final touches to TMi, the madcap children's show she co-presents live from 9am."

So, as often occurs on WP, there's a conflict between sources, so we should look for the best source or ask for opinions on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Is she in Who's Who ? I'll have a look next time I'm in the library. Can you or someone who knows her get her or her agent to post the correct info. on the Talk:Caroline_Flack page ? That would comply with Wikipedia:Suggestions_for_COI_compliance. Dunno if she's already edited the article or it's just someone claiming to be her - Special:Contributions/Flackie ? Until then, I think no information is preferable to potentially wrong info., so I'm going to remove the dob entirly. It's probably better if we open up the discussion to anyone else on her talk page. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you replaced links to external reference articles with interwiki links? Mjroots (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that I did - all the refs have external links on the title, do you have a ref number ? I did wikilink the accessdate in the citation templates, but I see that that doesn't work, so I've removed it. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that RFBailey had already fixed it - a silly copy n paste error on my part - my apologies. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself feel that the previous version, with the breaks and whitespaces, was harder to read. I have raised this issue at Talk:British Airways Flight 38/Archive %%i 1#Format of references for community input. If the community feels that the previous version was indeed preferable, it can easily be restored. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've added another quote. There has been a bit of a row about this section being a {{quotefarm}}. I've suggested on the talk page putting all the quotes on a subpage like the translation of the METAR. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've obviously missed all that. I think WP policy is not to use subpages, and particularly not to avoid the WP:Reliable sources policy. The AAIB report is important enough to quote. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New update out - The AAIB have published a new update, in the form of a Special Bulletin, available here. Unfortunately I can't access it from this computer as it's a PDF file, which causes my ancient thing to freeze completely. Maybe you'd like to have a read and add any relevant info to the article, replacing the snippet I added if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks, I logged in after hearing it on the evening news. I see others have clarified things, although I will fudge it a little to fairly reflect the findings <g> ! Google create textual representations of PDF files - see View as HTML - which I see they've now (~20 hours since release) done for the report. Copying and pasting is very slow, but it's a useful facility for quickly viewing contents. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not exactly an expert on the function, if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask them. I'd prefer specific questions on my talkpage, discussion about the offer here, if that's okay with you. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say keep up the good work in protecting this section of the article. Can't understand how people can possibly justify deleting it. Qantas and Air New Zealand seem to have copied the policy and it has been even more controversial there, yet people have tried to censor those articles too. Information like this which gets ignored by certain sections of the press is what makes wikipedia so useful. --Shakehandsman (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) I simply can't see the reason for deletion - there's a section for Controversies; it's a controversy that passes WP:Notability, so it's up to the people deleting it to justify their actions and I can't see how they can, hence my comments on POV editing. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might not want to template the regulars as you did here [6], far less revert it. Acroterion _(talk) 22:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - never heard of that essay before. I was aware that I was templating a regular, but the template is toned as a friendly reminder -

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'. Thank you.

and as the essay says "They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template.", which is the reason I opted to use a template. The edit at issue, removing the statement "The title, contrary to popular belief, was entirely made up." is contentious and I'm not entirely happy about it, or the fact that it was slipped through as a minor edit. What do you think ? The user I issued the template to deleted it 5 minutes later stating "Removed message, unless you can cite examples otherwise, I don't believe I have done anything inappropriate.", so I reverted it, adding the diff link to the edit in the title as an example, what was wrong with that ? btw what is your involvement in this ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without researching the history of the edit in question (a diff would save time, since I have no idea which one it was), I'd point out that Bobo192 is an admin who's active in vandalism patrol; such reverts are usually marked as minor. If he made a mistaken reversion (and we all do now and then), the reversion would be minor. I generally avoid templates for any established editor; a note usually brings better results. I keep Bobo on my watchlist since he's sort of a vandal magnet. Acroterion _(talk) 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the removal of a template message by any user is usually regarded as evidence they've read it; reverting the message has a way of aggravating things, and should be avoided (exceptions apply, as always). Acroterion _(talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and I saw the edit I made as a removal - a semi-reversion, if you like, of half, but not all of the material - of something contextless, uncited, and uncrucial to the article. Maybe it was mistakenly the fact that 90% of the time I do in fact hit the minor edit button these days, and if you still believe this was more than minor content reversion, then I very much apologize, but I had never intended to harm anyone. Maybe hitting it was an automatic reflex reaction. Maybe it was my fault for having been awake for 29 consecutive hours. Eitherway, I apologize.

I had never really thought of myself as a vandal magnet before - very few people have actually actively gone and edited my user page or user talk page without my noticing over the last third of a year or so - it's quite refreshing in comparison with those times I used to frequent these filtered recent changes and see at least a half dozen bad-faith edits. Those of course were the days before the role of dedicated RC Patrollers, or indeed Vandalbots, was really thought up.

Thank you for understanding. Bobo. 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. You may not realise it, but you hit a nerve here <g> ! The programme title was the subject of some speculation, which the edit you removed, added by a good editor, (and my new edit since) hoped to nail once and for all. The act of removing non vandalism text meant that is was a major edit according to Help:Minor_edit. Feel free to remove my template message as it's served it's purpose - and get some sleep <g> ! Interesting to see what 'Recent changes' actually is. I couldn't work through that as just working through my watchlist takes too long ! Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diff was given on Bobo's talk page as a result of my reverting the removal to add the diff. Sure, reverting such a message would normally be bad, but do you not think this was just such an exception as I also added the diff as necessary clarity ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the diff in question at first, but I think we can call everything discussed and resolved. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between Bobo and me, yes, between you and me, no. I feel that you should have taken care to understand the situation, which would have been explained by reading the diff, also you've failed to respond to my question. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that different editors may have different opinions on the major or minor nature of an edit, and that the tagging of edits either way is of limited utility. Better to discuss the true worth of the edit, rather than its magnitude, and to do it via personal note, rather than via templates. As far as the actual edit in question, I am satisfied that you and Bobo192 have arrived at an understanding, which I feared would not be the case if it was discussed via templates. That was my entire concern; I had no strong opinion on the content or the diff in question. Acroterion _(talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing from a false premise. Different editors may have different opinions, but that's irrelevent because use of minor edit has been defined in Help:Minor_edit -

"A check to a minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

"The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them."

This whole issue is about specifics. Your refusal to answer my question related to this particular issue and instead talk in generalities is not helping me. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I didn't think I was arguing anything: we do not disagree on the nature of a major versus a minor edit. I agree completely with the definition you cite. To be very specific about what is apparently your question: adding the diff was useful - reinstating the templated warning was not the way I would have approached it, but all turned out well, whether I needed to say anything or not. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sort out the times tomorrow. I'm not using any special editing tool, just "know" what is where as I've done virtually all the work on the article. Trick is to open section you want to edit and immediately preview it so you can see what/where to edit. Mjroots (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I don't see it myself. I think it's just a cunning plan to keep people like me away from it (and it worked) <g> ! -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your query on User talk:Keilana#PI ?, PI refers to "personal information". · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, and no worries. I've had the article in my watchlist for a while now and have intended working on it to clean it up and add sources, and finally got round to it! Still got a bit more to do this evening but then I'm going to have a break!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that I've finished editing the article for now. If you get the chance any time perhaps you could have a look over it for any mistakes (which I am sure I will have made)? Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added a link to the BBC page about his death at the bottom of the page 81.157.194.176 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Willie Harcourt-Cooze, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Harcourt-Cooze and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daytona2,

I see you undid some of my earlier edits for Jodie Kidd's page. I believe the news of the world story is inaccurate so I deleted it. You may or may not agree with this edit, but that is my opinion and interpretation.

As for my other edits, they are all 100% accurate, so please leave them as follows:

1) date of birth: 25 september 1978 2) current work for Discovery Channel: Fashion Avenue 3) picture of Jodie changed to a much more current image

Thanks very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgcowbell (talk • contribs) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed my edits, I think that you are confusing me with someone else. Please provide a diff of the change you disagree with. As for your comments above, your opinions appear to breach wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please detail why you believe that the News of The World story is not a WP:Reliable source. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John,

Thanks for your (quite diplomatic) comment:

"When placing banners such as that for notability on articles, please could you provide some details on the associated talk page, because, in many cases, the articles editors are too close to the subject and cannot see it with the same objectivity that you can. Cheers -- John"

I'm actually more interested in being constructive, and adding information, than anything else. But after looking at a few hundred random articles over the last few days, patterns of problems started emerging.

In the case where almost no information at all is provided: "So-and-so was born in 1936 and played for the Wah-Wah team.", the burden of proof should be on the writer, not the editor. It takes 90 seconds to create such a boilerplate article, but it could take an editor 20 or 30 minutes to figure out whether the writer just hadn't done their homework, or if the person really is notable. If that situation pertained, then (possibly) unnotable information could be added to Wiki at many times the rate it was possible for a (let's say hypothetically, skilled) editor to correct them. (Today, I corrected an article with blanks on the topic of an asteroid -- that was apparently automatically generated from an astronomical database!)

On a related issue, I've read several quite good Wiki articles whose sources were Japanese-only, Russian-only, or in one case German. Those I've tagged as having no citations (with a brief explanation for the editing history), because citations that English readers won't be able to read are no little better than no citations. The other issue being, of course, that most Wiki editors won't be able to check the citations. (It occurred to me that if one were going to make outrageous statements in articles, a great way to do it would be make all the references Basque.)

For awhile, I was scanning new articles, and looking at other editors' "instant" decisions, so I thought I pretty much had the "Wiki editorial philosophy" down, but let me know where there are rough edges.

Regards, 24.130.14.14 (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I agree with everything you say about it being easy to create non verified articles than to make or check that they are verified. As regards non-English refs, dropping a request on the appropriate regional boards discussion page may do the trick - Wikipedia:Regional_notice_boards. The WP policy appears to me to be an oxymoron - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources - how can a person not knowing the language "verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.". I'd post on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability to double check whether marking such articles as having no citations is reasonable. As for WP in general, reading the Wikipedia:Five pillars and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style will tell you just about everything you need to know. Editing techniques you can pick up easily by examining the edit code as you go along. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! You might be interested in the talk page now. Sorry for the long delay in response! Charles 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the merger proposal :) Charles 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently sent me a note on vandalism, but the information i added is correct according to the website i referred to and to my best knowledge, this "vandalism" is not deliberate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.16.250 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding incorrect information to articles, and ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's deliberate vandalism. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't really see a series of old photographs as spam. I thought some of the photographs would be appreciated to the subject matter.

I just thought I would give Wikipeida a go that way.

Wikipedia has uploaded one of the photographs on the site without asking permission. The Gandhi photograph. I like it being there.

Plus a few other wiki pages have linked to my website. From other users because of the page content. It's that, that gave me the idea. It is linked because of the photographic and history on that page.

Projectblue (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)projectblue[reply]

How you see things is irrelevent. You must abide by Wikipedias policies and guidelines. Why did you ignore the comment requesting you first discuss proposed external links before adding them ? Why have you ignored Wikipedias policy on conflict of interest ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see that message. It's all a bit new to me. I understand in hindsight that some of links were ie the photography page could be seen as inappropriate. Though to refer to historical photographs and information about the photographs as 'spam'. I personally found a bit much.

When I get chance I'll take it all down. If it's not already.

Projectblue (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)projectblue[reply]

Just as a PS. You sent me the message about links on 19:54, 28 April 2008. The last external link I put on Wikipedia was on 05:17, 27 April 2008. Hence I didn't 'ignore' your comment. Not that it matters.

Projectblue (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)projectblue[reply]

Wrong - 19:35, 28 April 2008 - [7] and the comment - "Please do not add links to photo galleries and photographer communities here, nor any site selling photography related items. Wikipedia is not a link farm. If in doubt, discuss a proposed link on the talk page before adding it here." - (which I didn't add) has been in place since at least last year, so you did ignore it when you added your link. Quit whinging and start respecting Wikipedia guidelines and policies. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...was speedily deleted because its original content did not establish notability. Royalty claims are common, and not every noble actually warrants an article in many Britons' minds. The subsequent edits have resolved any lingering doubts I initially had. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, which comment of mine on the issue are you addressing ? I tried to see the article in it's original form, but that has been deleted. After reappearing, the article was then (incorrectly) flagged for a second time in spite of detailed notability. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "I'm surprised that the article was initially deleted under the WP:Speedy deletion criteria." I was explaining the initial deletion. It was not deleted again. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What warrants an article in many Britons' minds is irrelevent in the face of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. On the first page of a Google search there is an article in the New York Times about his wedding, an entry in thepeerage.com (a widely used Wikipedia compliant reliable source) sourced to Burke's Peerage and an entry on the Privy Council website confirming his appointment as High Sheriff. These alone are enough to disqualify it from the speedy deletion process. This should have been WP:PRODed, which I would have opposed and cancelled, then put through WP:Afd where a proper discussion could have occurred. Admins who have the power to delete material without reference to anyone else, should not take these responsibilities lightly. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was by a banned sockpuppeteer, User:WJH1992. He comes here at least twice a day and is blockable on sight, and indeed has had a recent unblock request declined by an Arbitrator. Because none of his edits can be trusted, all are reverted. This one got caught up in that. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-dokey. Though I personally prefer references to have a standard <ref></ref> format.Bradley0110 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Scoot.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. aldibibable (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought my edits represented the received wisdom on the situation. I've never come across any other significant point of view in economics, as far as I recall me edit represented the mainstream neoclassical viewpoint. Decent cites are hard to find for what any economists thinks of as obvious, like

"Planning controls and building regulations restrict supply, increasing the price of new housing"

The only place I can think off the top of my head suitable to source such simple things would be a basic economics textbook, of which I have a few. But ref'ing to a textbook seems a trifle amateurish. Larklight (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the things I've already said. You were 100% right on the original issue of what constitutes a minor edit, but the way you approached the problem created unnecessary strife. Using a template approach rather than writing out a personal explanation wasn't the right thing to do; the template wasn't as clear as a personal explanation would have been. Then things got worse because User:Darrenhusted didn't understand what you were getting at--and you didn't realize at first that he didn't understand--and it all ended up on AN/I. Reading through the history and especially your first AN/I comment, it seems more like you were trying to have him comply or be punished than trying to help him do things better. If I may offer you a suggestion, there is more to getting things done on Wikipedia than being right; starting out with a polite, personalized, and patient approach sometimes works wonders.

But anyway, no hard feelings, I hope. Darrenhusted did get feedback from several people, which was a fair thing for you to request if your explanations weren't helping; I just wish you had said things differently at a few points. It's possible I owed you a more direct explanation rather than just making the brief comments I did; I'll reflect on that and try my best to follow my own advice. -- SCZenz (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..because the first edit I made a mistake with the URL, the second edit corrected it. [8] -- Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a significant amount of vandalism on the additions I made to the page on Barry Townsley. The person most responsible is 213.86.218.130

The other contributors have been trying to undo his edits, but since my last contribution some time ago, there have been substantial removals of legitimate and referenced material. How do we prevent 213.86.218.130 from returning to damage the page again please?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelpwsmith (talk • contribs) 10:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it listed this as a creation of yours, or didn't delete it when you moved it to the new title, so I killed it myself. under {{db-redirtypo}}. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wondering where you got the figure for the wealth of Girls Aloud? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you cited it later on, not next to the actual text. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daytona2! An article you have been concerned with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it unwise for either of us to replace or revert that reference, under WP:3RR; since it will effectively be a 3RR in spirit if not in letter.

Since just as good a reference already stood in the text, I see no value added by it being a reference. I've left a more detailed reply at the talk page for the article, Talk:Keith Floyd.

You presumably noticed I added a references (from The Guardian) to the C4 programme. I am not against it being a reference, but as it stood (and yeah I would have just fixed the spelling if that was the big deal) I do not think it was WP:V. Let's discuss it at the article page please.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your username specifically directs to that of Daytona USA 2, which matches a real life product, and may constitute a violation of WP:USERNAME.

On a completely unrelated note, are you an administrator? If not, are you ready of being one? I would be belated to nominate you!----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue with the username. –xeno^talk 19:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why you feel that threatening me with being blocked is necessary when dealing with a simple documentation issue? Your tone is completely unnecessary. I also don't know exactly what you are referring to - could you make it clearer what you feel was not documented correctly? I am at a bit of a loss as to what you are making reference to. I am sorry that you do not seem to feel that courtesy is necessary - you made your point; it is not necessary to threaten me with blocking because of a documentation issue to do so. A simple, courteous sentence would have sufficed. Have a Happy New Year! The Moody Blue (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your recent edit to Dick Van Dyke wherein you added an External link. Your edit summary, however said only "ce". I checked to see if it was a one-time mistake of yours, but I see many of your recent edits are summarized as "ce", but actually include revisions like changing fortune figures, adding refs, adding new information to a list, etc.

I consider copy-editing to including rewriting a sentence in a more encyclopedic style, correcting some English, or fixing the spelling of the word "approximately". What do you mean by "ce"? Something else? The kind of changes I mention would usually be minor edits, but you haven't marked most of your "ce" edits as minor, so I wonder if you mean something different. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that it's meaning is as described in the dictionary - Copyedit - to edit (a manuscript, document, text, etc.) for publication, esp. for punctuation, spelling, grammatical structure, style, etc. [9]. I really didn't appreciate your pointing out my incorrect spelling of the word approximately. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I moved it to User:Xenobot/R#WP:RUN and await response from the task sponsor. –xeno^talk 19:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have manually removed the non-runners. By the way, WP:RUN does cover race-walkers. Racepacket (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people I looked at were not race-walkers. Carelessly used BOTs are a menace. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, you were flat wrong when you said what you removed was false. On the last day of nominations, the number of MPs who had not yet nominated was smaller than the number needed to put both Abbott and McDonnell on the ballot. When Diane Abbott got to 33 on June the 9th, there were only 14 MPs left, which proves that there were not enough MPs left to allow McDonnell to also get on. -Rrius (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reference and none of the material that I've seen stated that to be the case. Without providing references, your assertions are worthless. By reverting my deletion without providing a reference you have ignored Wikipedia's requirement to provide references. Why ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to respond to you. WP:Verify does not require a ref for simple math. The article contained a ref for the number of Labour MPs who had nominated candidates, and the total number of Labour MPs is not controversial. Subtracting the one from the other is not WP:Original research. -Rrius (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just querying the removal of this page. The article concerns the very notable MP who was at the time and still is only named in news coverage and local history books as "Sam Tom Rosbotham"? - Galloglass 09:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you requre refs I'd check the archives of the Ormskirk Adertiser, cheers ( - Galloglass 09:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hansard refers to him as Samuel - Sam Tom appears to be an unverified nickname, giving no grounds for the previous article move - hence my reversal. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest you check other sources than hansard as indicated above, mainly OR archives 1928-1939 and various publications by M.Duggan on Ormskirk. Cheers - Galloglass 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• What was this about? My question to you now is, have you even read through that particular message of mine before you jump to conclusion and start to accuse me of personal attack? FYI, I didn't make an apology beforehand for no logical reasons, ya'know? Furthermore, my comment was an honest assessment and experience after going through a couple of AfD/CfD/FfD/MfD in which IP editors (along with sockpuppets) barge in and attempts to swing the opinion of consensus, which can and have resulted in vote fraud, mind you. Again, I can forgive you if you misunderstand me but if you were to deliberately misconstrue my statement and decided not to AGF on an honest statement that I've already openly admitted to followed by posting another warning on my talk page again... I will take you to ANI for harassment. Take heed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daytona2. A member of the WP:EAR team has addressed an enquiry you may be concerned with at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Civility issue. --Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Picture Post - 16 September 1942 - Front Cover - Air Transport Auxilliary (ATA) First Officer Maureen Dunlop.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article Tracy Edwards was tagged as a copyright problem on January 25th. It has come due for admin closure today, and it seems that although you were the contributor who added the content, here, you were not notified.

The editor who tagged the article evidently did so from concern that it may constitute a derivative work as a close paraphrase of the cited source. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are.

Since you have not been notified, I have not closely evaluated the content. But one example I see that might have triggered the tagging follows.

Aged 15 she was expelled from school for smoking and drinking on a school trip. Her mother thought that she was mixing with the wrong people and suggested she go back-packing around Europe to escape.

The source says:

At 15 I was expelled for smoking and drinking on a school trip. My Mum decided I was mixing with the wrong people and said I should go back-packing around Europe to escape.

This content does follow very closely on the structure and language of the original.

Before this is closed, you're meant to have an opportunity to respond, to secure permission or to rewrite the content before administrator closure. I am therefor remedying the lack of notice and relisting this for another week.

Should you choose to rewrite the content during this time, please do so in the temporary space that is now linked from the article's front. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

If you have any questions about this, please come by my talk page. Otherwise I (or another administrator) will revisit the issue in about seven days. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BBC - One Show - 20110916 - Fix My Dog - Jordan Shelley training Roxi.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And may I ask what purpose there is in naming me, other than to cast a negative shadow? Could Dtgriscom not have just pointed out that it had been changed, rather than linking me up, so you could post your opinion as well? DarthBotto _talk•cont 00:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, and I'll say again - As for not appreciating being identified, you identified yourself when making the edit, so it's quite reasonable for Dan to refer to you by your username. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more descriptive in your use of edit summaries? The edit summary ce means "copyedit", and should only be used when you're making edits to correct formatting, spelling, grammar, and so forth. If you're making edits which appreciably add to or modify the article's content (rather than its appearance), then you should use a more descriptive edit summary. For example, this edit included some copyediting, but also added a paragraph of new content; these edits were not copyediting at all. It's particularly important to be as transparent as possible when making edits to biographical articles. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that its meaning is as described in the dictionary - Copyedit - to edit (a manuscript, document, text, etc.) for publication, esp. for punctuation, spelling, grammatical structure, style, etc. [10]. Thus my use of ce is correct. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Scoot.com, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John. Replied again on my talk. P. Pedro :  Chat  22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daytona2! Don't forget to sign your posts while using User:Daytona2/Intro. Thanks! Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I was looking at this revision, which is from 2008. So, if you see this, feel free to ignore it if it's no longer relevant. Sorry about that! Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Evans (TV presenter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Good Morning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, removing valid information like this, quoting WP:V is hardly useful. The fact it is in Scotland is patently obvious and the sort of information that really doesn't need citation. Ditto, Dumfries and Galloway - look at the map in the infobox? If you insist here are 3 refs [11] [12] [13].

If you are going to get that picky, then that entire sentence should go - How do we know its a village? How do we know its 3km from Kirkcudbright? That second point might actually be false after all.

A suggestion - If you are unhappy with the verifiability of something fundamental to the subject, do make a basic attempt to check yourself? 99.99% of location articles will not give a cite to which nation it is in (though admittedly in developed articles, that will be mentioned in passing by other sources).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd spent the time adding a reference rather than writing this comment there wouldn't be a problem. This article had a load of uncited and point of view statements which is why I'm now challenging the addition of, and the restoration of, material without the required verification. Please respect Wikipedias rules and stop adding material without the required references. Quoting WP:VERIFY is useful for people who don't understand the rules, but in this case it isn't as you seem intent on ignoring them. It isn't down to the reader to check for themselves, it's up to you to supply reliable references. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of WP rules and I'd point out that WP:VERIFY does not mean every little fact needs to have an inline citation, and you are being overzealous in this instance (see Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed). Providing such a reference would stop your complaint in this case - and you could easily have copied one of my refs above to the article, instead of edit warring.

I am hesitant to add the citation you want for a more basic reason, which I mentioned above: Its questionable that Twynholm is 1.8 miles NNW of Kirkcudbright and that tidbit could benefit from a source. Giving an inline citation to the sentence for the trivial fact could misleadingly give the impression that the more difficult fact has also been cited to a reliable source.

I'd also point out the exact same info you are removing is included in the infobox, along with a good deal more info, all unsourced there.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't expect me to research and add references to unreferenced material that you add or restore. You can add references which apply to specific portions of a sentence, so that isn't an issue. Please do so. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to make things clear my concern now isn't with the article, but with your understanding and application of WP:VERIFY. The nature of the material you are removing, and how you are doing it, go further than the policy (and its supporting guidance) suggest and as a result you have removed good, verifiable, info from this article (and others) for no good reason.

First off, I agree policy states burden of proof is on the editor adding content to provide a source. I did do so, in my initial post above - which also invited you to copy one of the sources across to the article. The fact you chose to again revert, instead of copying one of those refs, was needlessly confrontational.

Consider the following excerpts from WP guidance:

• WP:VNT defines verifability by saying "material is verifable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source. Verifiablity is not determined by whether the material has already been supplied with an inline citation."
• To quote from VERIFY itself: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation; please state your concern that they may not be a published reliable source for the content; and therefore it may not be verifiable" and "...For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified".
• WP:PRESERVE states: Instead of deleting text, consider ... requesting a citation by adding {{cn}} or... doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself.

In short - if information is verifiable then it is possible to provide a link to a source. Unsourced, but verifiable information should not normally be removed as a first resort, its better to find a source or tag it as needing a source. I'd suggest you make a judgement call as to whether the unsourced information is verifiable, before getting rid of it. If you think its unverifiable remove it. If you think it is verifiable, either go look for a ref yourself or just tag with {{cn}}. If the material has sat with a {{cn}} for sometime - remove it.

Having a look at some of your other recent edits I see other misapplications of this policy. WP:VERIFY does not allow for complete blanking of an article, like you did at MediaMosa. If you think an article doesn't belong on WP, then use PROD or AFD to start the deletion process, don't leave it with no content. While that article may have other issues, it is sourced just fine - click the external link, the software's own website contains the data and can be found in at most two clicks? And how can VERIFY possibly forbid correcting the tense of a sentence describing a past event?

I have reverted these last two examples, if you revert these and just quote VERIFY again as you do so, then I will bring this matter to the attention of other administrators on WP:ANI.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VNT is a laugh, thanks, I've never seen that. On that basis editors can add text without any attempt to reference it which is at odds with WP:VERIFY. MediaMosa is a spam article referenced only by the companies own website. That is not sufficient. That's why it was multi issue bannered in 2010. I find the whole AFD process too time consuming so simply remove offending text. Mary Ann Ochota has been multi issue bannered for the last year. This issue is not the tense, it's the fact that an unreferenced change has been made. This is all covered by the WP:VERIFY policy. They've even emboldened the relevent part of the policy - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"On that basis editors can add text without any attempt to reference it" is exactly how the majority of articles develop, and is not banned in any way shape or form. For instance, its rare for an anonymous contributor to add the proper references, but we welcome those contributions. You are giving undue weight to one aspect of VERIFY not the whole, and you will notice that section is primarily about material challenged or likely to be challenged (challenging everything is not helpful, see WP:BLUE).

In cases like MediaMosa; your actions on that article are not correct procedurally. Deletion is carried out by an administrator (you don't have the technical capability to delete anything), after consensus determines article is inappropriate (which you cannot determine unilaterally). If you want to remove an article you need to go via AFD or use WP:PROD - your personal dislike of AFD (which I can understand) doesn't negate the procedure and justify blanking an article.

Regarding Mary Ann Ochota, yes there are several issues with that article. However, the change you have twice reverted is simply from "She is the co-presenter of Time Team series 19 (2012)" to "She was the co-presenter of Time Team series 19 (2012)". Those are equivalent statements, equally backed by any sources. However, the second is correct grammatically to describe a past event (something from 2012). There's also the small point that there already is an inline citation about her relationship to Time Team, which is being used to support the Special K tidbit.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Luton Analogue Computing Engine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mrs. Miniver (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radio 4. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daytona2, per your edits here and here (though it is nearly 6 years ago!) at User talk:Pl5732, I thought you might be interested in my comment here at User talk:K0911301. This 'new' account created Papadakis Publisher. 220 of ^Borg 20:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 220 of Borg. Given that the articles are correctly referenced, I'm relaxed about the multiple accounts and COI. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get any responses on the Help Desk, but the starting point would be Talk: Twentieth Century Society. Don't worry about the Help Desk being the wrong place, because even if there are people who will say it is the wrong place for certain types of questions, it is the place to be directed to the right place.

If no one responds on the talk page, you seem to have a disagreement with Wikipedia editors over a policy issue. I'm not absolutely sue because I've been told before that this was the wrong place, but WP:VPP may be the place to discuss whether "The" should be used in an article title.

The more serious issue with that article is that too many sources are not independent of the subject.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BBC - One Show - 20110916 - Fix My Dog - Jordan Shelley training Roxi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BBC - One Show - 20110916 - Fix My Dog - Jordan Shelley training Roxi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the VPN was paused and auto switched back on and I guess I gave the wrong IP on the UTRS.

This second report for 5.64.27.205 is valid so the comments you refer me to on the UTRS about it being NordVPN is incorrect. It's a Sky Broadband connection, not a web host. See https://prnt.sc/sq_S5QQ4UVal

I've used Sky & NordVPN for years and never suffered an IP range block. I disconnect the VPN, edit, then reconnect. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]