User talk:Adambro/Archive 11

Accident scene
You said: "(cur) (last) 22:18, 20 August 2008 Adambro (Talk | contribs | block) (4,203 bytes) (remove unfree image, no reason why a free image of the scene can't be found) (undo)" - that's not how it works. You assume there is no free image UNTIL you encounter a free image of an accident scene. We do this with images of dead people, for instance; as long as we do not know of a free image, you are allowed to upload a non-free image. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you tell me to what page this relates such that I can make a more informed comment please? Thanks. Adambro (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at your recent contributions I assume this is TACA Flight 390, give me a minute to respond. Adambro (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it is! Nonfree says:
 * "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."
 * Acceptable uses: "8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary."

The thing with accident wreckage is that it does not stay that way forever; once the wreckage is dismantled it is impossible to get a photo of it, and it is impossible to recreate a plane accident scene.

I could look at Flickr to see if anyone there took a photo of the accident scene and is willing to relicense photos to a level that is free. Once we get our hands on a free photo, then we can remove the nonfree photo. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only picture I found on Flickr regarding TACA 390 was a copyright violation: http://www.flickr.com/photos/costaricasurfing/2537401761/ - Unless we can find a free photo of the wreck (and the wreck has probably been dismantled) we should assume that there is no free photo and use rationale 8, iconic status. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unconvinced that the criteria you highlight is valid in this case since it isn't the image that is being discussed, it is the subject of the image. I also don't agree that simply not being able to find a free photo on Google/Flickr etc for something which does no longer exist is justification to use a non-free image. This just serves to devalue the hard work of contributors who go to great lengths to take photographs of such situations. Why would anyone bother if they could simply sit at home, wait for things to be cleared up, then find a random photo on the net and claim fair use. I fail to see the compelling need to even use a photo of the crash scene which can justify the use of an unfree image. However, considering the edit to my userpage I'm just about to make, announcing my retirement for the time being from Wikipedia due to other commitments, I won't be making any further comment on this nor will I be removing the image again. Adambro (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2008
Delivered October 2008 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding IP Address 216.49.231.250
I went to the article Typewriter and found vandalism there made by this IP address. I gave this person a uw-generic4 because I found out the history of this IP's actions. So I want to let you notify other for me before this person strikes again, and I would appreciate that IP address be banned again. Thank you! --Gh87 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your action with the Georgina Baillie article in my user space. It seems really bizarre - I just had a bit of spare time today and wanted to read more about the girl. I can't see what the fuss is, she is already famous and just be the look of her, she's hot hot hot and unless she's got a voice like a parrot she's going far. Bugsy (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've apologized to Insomnia for the undue haste of that deletion. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK v2.0
Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

Northern Rail
I have found the citation you required for class 180's on Northern. I added the information after speaking to the Managing director of Northern Rail but couldn't find any citation in the media, but finally have. You may need a whole review though as there are MANY MANY statements with no citation on many pages, good job we are not all as picky as you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.246.61 (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are indeed correct that there are a great many unsourced statements in articles which I fully support the removal of if no source can be cited. However, obviously I can't deal with everything. It is a great shame that "we are not all as picky as you", since Wikipedia policy requires information is cited. I am very worried about rumours from rail forums ending up on Wikipedia article with no citations and will continue to fight this. Class 180s to Northern has developed like this but I am pleased if finally something resembling a reliable source can be cited although it is a shame that in this case, since I don't have a copy of 'Rail' I can't confirm the exact details. This is useful because as has been shown by your recent edit to British Rail Class 150, the source doesn't always support what is being stated. Adambro (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited!
Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Wikiproject Electronics collaboration
Hi, I am writing to you because you have listed yourself as a member of the Electronics WikiProject. Sadly, this project is pretty dead, but I propose to resuscitate it with a collaboration. The idea is to have a concerted effort on improving one article per month, hopefully to GA or FA status and nominate the very best of them for the front page. I have prepared a page to control this process at WikiProject Electronics/Collaboration (actually, I mostly shamelessly stole it from WikiProject Mammals where a collaboration of this sort was succesfully run). There you can make nominations for articles for collaboration or comment on the nominations of others.

If you want to take part you might like to place this template  on your userpage which will give you a link to the current collaboration. If you are no longer interested in Wikiproject Electronics, please remove yourself from the members list, which is now at WikiProject Electronics/Members

Thanks for listening,  Sp in ni ng  Spark  15:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1066DC dvd.GIF)
Thanks for uploading Image:1066DC dvd.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. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

British Rail Class 150
Hi Adam. I undid your removal of the Fleet Details on British Rail Class 150 as I think it would be better to tag them as unreferenced and give people a chance to reference them. This information must have come from somewhere so I think there is a good chance that it can be referenced properly. If nobody does anything with it within a week or two then please take it out again. I won't object this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're more optimistic than me but this is a problem that persists in UK rail articles generally and previous attempts to find reliable sources for similar information has proved impossible. Too many rail enthusiasts unfortunately don't appreciate that they can't just add content because it is accurate, we can only add content that can be appropriately referenced. I think 's comment in restoring this content that "there is a lot of useful info there that IS CORRECT. Also other pages contain similar information so why can't this one?" is indicative of this problem, there seems to be a lack of concern about verifiability.


 * Whilst I appreciate your intention of leaving this a bit longer in the hope that references can be found, I fear all this will achieve is for this unreferenced material to be available under our name for longer. I would rather this information not be in the article until such time as it can be referenced and just as this, and your comment on the talk page will hopefully draw attention to this issue, it is equally possible that we can encourage editors to try to source this without it being in the article in the meantime.


 * I've tagged this article as lacking refs on 5 December 2008, I've raised this general problem with the appropriate Wikiproject, and individually with Year1989. None of this has resolved these issues.


 * I won't remove the information immediately again, I'll give it a week or two, but I'll continue to try to address this problem in other articles and, whilst trying to get references added, won't spend an excessive amount of time in doing so before removing content. It is more important that readers are presented with referenced content than it is to keep unreferenced content in articles. Adambro (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RE
Hi, unfortunately the email was written in a too informal way to be posted on OTRS. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My DRV
Thank you for all you have done to help me with this DRV. I thought you should know that I have managed to find and upload three original images --98.213.141.241 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Couplings
I've replied to your message on my own talk page. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:NX-East-Anglia.gif)
You've uploaded File:NX-East-Anglia.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:NX-East-Coast.gif)
You've uploaded File:NX-East-Coast.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:SOTALOGO.gif)
You've uploaded File:SOTALOGO.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Cross Country Class 221
Hi,

Class 221 total numer of sets: 44

Virgin Trains operate 21 of them (I work for them)

Therefore CrossCountry operate the remaining 23.

HTH

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiestaman87 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see, the figures I have are slightly out of date. It appears 221114–221118 got transferred to Virgin on the December TT change. Thanks for your help. Just trying to find a reliable source for this now. Adambro (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DFTT at Talk:Project Chanology
I appreciate your sound response with sources, but really WP:RBI is the best way to go with this. For some reason has been a source of chronic abuse on this article and its talk page. See also and. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article sections
Points noted - I will be more careful in formatting sections in future. Thanks.87.102.43.12 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)FengRail (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

fires?
Also re British Rail Class 220 - thanks for adding an external link for the fire -(from the link):"It is believed to have started after a bird got wedged in part of a Cross Country train and caused the brakes to overheat" I'm not sure if this has been reported correctly ??

From Banbury_railway_station "..a CrossCountry Voyager forming a service from Bournemouth to Derby caught fire whilst standing on platform 2. The fire was located in the air conditioning vents..."
 * This seems different from the bird/brakes explanation?

I've left message at Talk:British_Rail_Class_220 regarding this - notably I can't prove it was a 220 and not a 221/222.

Other fires
From http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/img/aboutus/downloads/CrossCountry%20News%20April%2006.pdf The only main line Voyager failure of significance has been the exhaust fire at Congleton on 19.01.06. As with two earlier similar fires, at Starcross and Newcastle, the cause was a wrongly-fitted component during a recent engine overhaul by Cummins, the engines manufacturer. FengRail (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the above to the article though it doesn't seem to directly relate to the banbury fire.

FengRail (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of 365530 at Cambridge
This applies to the webpage Networker (train)  

Someone thinks that the photograph of the Class 365 'Networker Express' No. 365530 at Cambridge is also a Class 165 Network Turbo - this is incorrect and the photograph should be removed. The Networker Express Class 365 are dual voltage four carriage EMUs, whilst the Networker Turbo Class 165 are diesel two and tree car DMUs.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

needs to be dramatic. its a company take over!
needs to be dramatic. its a company take over! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.117.68 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Singa goody
Some people tried to vandisied my page, Singa goody and It is not an advertising page. Olivertwisted and several other admin helped me when the page before. I don't understand why the recent need for deletion.. Please assist me. Thanks a lot..

Dreams20 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made my comments about this at Articles for deletion/Singa goody. Adambro (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Martin
Hi Adam - this news is currently on the "Breaking News" ticker on Sky News - it's now just been added to the SN website - so I've updated to include this WCR4 6 (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I might have been confusing this with something else since the BBC article also mentions it and my understanding is that it is procedure for them to take up a seat in the House of Lords instead. Adambro (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On your edit to the Speaker's election page... you are in fact incorrect, MPs have to be specifically nominated, and the vote takes place on a ballot-paper listing those who have been put forward, as you'll see from the BBC reference at the bottom of that page. Perhaps you could undo your edit? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it remains accurate. Potential Speakers have to be nominated by other MPs but the indivual who is being nominated doesn't have to agree to it. Therefore, an MP cannot choose to be a candidate just as they can't choose to not be one. All MPs are potentially candidates, it's just some may choose to make their feelings known as to whether they would be prepared to accept the role. Adambro (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Under House of Commons Standing Order 1B(3)(b), "Each nomination shall consist of a signed statement made by the candidate declaring his willingness to stand for election accompanied by the signatures of not fewer than twelve..." - what you have added is inaccurate. I'm loth to remove it personally because of 3RR concerns, but I will do if you're unhappy about doing it yourself. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, under your perception of the system, where MPs can't decline to be candidates, the ballot-paper would have to list every single Member, including government ministers and Opposition spokespeople. Common sense must say that such a system is clunky and impractical! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please bear with me for a few minutes. I was just reading the relevant Standing Orders when I received your message at 17:19 and will continue reading through to ensure I understand before commenting or reverting myself. I'm not yet fully convinced that my wording is inaccurate so wouldn't like to see it reverted just yet. Give me a few minutes and I'll then be in a better position to comment. Adambro (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my second message wasn't intended to barrack or hurry you; it was simply an afterthought. While reading through the Standing Orders is fascinating, the quote I have given you (which I promise is genuine!) makes quite clear that candidate consent is required with a nomination. While your wording isn't strictly inaccurate, it gives less clear information than the original phraseology, which made clear that MPs choose specifically to stand and throw themselves forward, rather than just mention that they'd quite like to have the job. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the Standing Orders, which I would accept I probably should have done so before, I recognise that my comment that "the individual who is being nominated doesn't have to agree to it" is incorrect, a "signed statement made by the candidate declaring his willingness to stand for election" is required. I come to the conclusion that my edit summary was definitely incorrect but, as you note, the wording of the edit perhaps isn't strictly inaccurate. I suppose what I was trying to achieve was to make a distinction between someone simply wanting the job, and someone actually being nominated which can be perhaps compared to the process of local parties selecting a candidate. Their selection doesn't become an MP, they've just received backing to stand and still need to be voted in. I wonder if you might be able to suggest how this can be better explained because I don't think the previous revision makes this clear; an MP can't just decide to stand, they need support to be considered. These individuals are putting themselves forward to be nominated to become Speaker rather than to become Speaker if you can spot the minor difference. Adambro (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you changed two "clumps" of wording, one of which was along the lines of Joe Bloggs has announced his intention to stand - I think that that is accurate. It covers the fact that they may not ultimately receive 12 other Members' support and get nominated, but that they want the job. It seems to be a fair compromise? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to accept any rewording you propose and recognise that my rewording was made primarily on the basis of a misunderstanding of the process even if the resulting text wasn't necessarily completely incorrect. I would note that of the two clumps of wording I changed, one was just the hidden comment to editors and I don't think either contradict the other. "Joe Bloggs has announced his intention to stand" is probably better than saying "Joe Bloggs has announced he will be standing" which I felt was what was being said. Adambro (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ > what do you think? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. Thank you for helping to clarify this. Adambro (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing?
Please, please, before posting these new Ongoing? subsections every week or month or so at Talk:Project Chanology, stop to consider that these are all socks of abusive user and indefintely community banned user. Take a moment to look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DavidYork71 - he's used well over 200 accounts abusively for vandalism and disruption of this project. Per WP:BAN, we should not be indulging, validating, or considering these edits as anything other than vandalism from an abusive sockpupetteer. Cirt (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to WP:DFTT, the best thing to do is WP:RBI when it comes to socks of . Cirt (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Dave Vitty Page
noticed that my account had been used to deface the page "Dave Vitty" (of the chris moyles breakfast show team). i suspect it was a friend taking advantage of my account set to auto sign in. apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom991 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Page moves
Why do you seem to often move pages only to undo your change? Adambro (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply because, when I often read pages, or articles on Wikipedia, the authors have often pasted links which are not built yet. However, if it's a fairly well-known subject, there may be an article on that topic already; or the writers may have used a slightly colloquial, or inaccurate wording in their link.


 * I don't see what harm there is in creating a link to an existing article. It's certainly not vandalising an article, as I'm not attempting to permanently rename any of them. It's simply quicker than building a link from scratch in many cases. (Berk (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
 * If you wish to create a new redirect then please follow the red link and create the page with  #REDIRECT Target page name . It is quick, less disruptive and less confusing for other editors. Adambro (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Barry Hunau talk page
Hi Adambro, I wonder, if it would be OK with you, if your and my posts about notability would be permamently removod from the article talk page? I just think that because the article was kept, maybe there is no reason to keep this discussion on the talk page of the article? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be appropriate. Comments are only really removed from talk pages when they get too long and are archived. Additionally, the concerns I've raised there still remain and I do feel some of my concerns were never addressed on the talk page or on the deletion request. I cannot understand why you would want to remove our comments anyway.
 * I would note that the article wasn't kept because there was a compelling argument to do so, it was kept simply because not enough people took part to properly form a consensus either way. I maintain that it should be deleted and am likely to raise this issue again in future.
 * The article isn't properly referenced and it fails to demonstrate that this individual is notable in accordance with the notability criteria. Of the two references, one is a very trivial mention and the other isn't independent of the subject.
 * Of the reasons given to oppose the deletion, your observation that there are other articles with similar problems is not a reason to keep this one, and the reasons Dream Focus gave, that "His work is found in multiple newspapers, and he has won notable awards for it", the first does perhaps have some merit but isn't supported by any reliable sources in the article, and the second, that "he has won notable awards for" his work is clearly incorrect. The two "notable awards", "Best Editorial Cartoons of The Year" and "The Best Editorial Cartoons of Campaign 2008", are neither awards, nor is there any real evidence that they should be considered notable. In fact nothing really turns up in a Google search for the latter. I remain unconvinced that this article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and so maintain that it should be deleted. As such I am likely to raise this issue again in the future and so any comments about this issue could be helpful to other editors so shouldn't be removed. Adambro (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Adam, for taking your time to respond my message.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Retired?
Not by the looks of your last 500 edits! lol. MickMacNee (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I perhaps like to pretend I'm not addicted to editing... Adambro (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just when you thought you were out.... lol. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

AF447
Hi, it was File:Air France A330-200 F-GZCN cropped.jpg, but wrongly identified as 'CP by an editor. I'm not going to change my !vote again though. An identical photo of 'CP from that angle would be almost exactly the same. BTW, you did add it to the correct section, but as I state at the top of the page, if unsure add to the bottom. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying. Adambro (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Automatic translation can help you understand the gist of the translated text but is no substitute for a professional human translator.. The following as translated by program gives the gist. SNEA denies information about messages passenger
 * Hi you wanted portuguese translation and receive on wikinews from Physchim62 before as noted in archive, but for on going needs for language transaltions following link might help forgist of concepts.

Unlike that was disclosed by a Portuguese publication, not assumed Technical Director of SNEA, Ronaldo Jenkins, information that passengers of flight af 447(4) Air France would have sent messages Mobile family when they saw problems with the aircraft.

This information was raised by a reporter and discarded by the Director of the Union, which is practically impossible that such messages were sent by cellular conventional unless some link satellite. Patelurology2 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'd not seen Microsoft's Bing Translator. I tend to use Google Translate and then perhaps Babel Fish if I want a second opinion. Always useful to have another option. This case was one of the few instances where simply getting the gist wasn't adequate because it was a significant factor in a deletion request concerning a Wikinews article and so it was important to have as accurate translation as possible. Adambro (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a beginner.. will try to put Babel Fish with the other two programs I have in Wiki pages on Language barrier and other places; not certain those translation programs have pages of their own, or should or could have, further insight may be needed; used external link feature on page instead of appropriate at the bottom in a separate Ext Link section.Patelurology2 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adam,
Yes, it was me, who voted and commented on the deletion request. I thought nobody would doubt it was me. The thing is I cannot login to Commons. By a pure accident I enforced my break until the year 10000 here :). I was really ashamed to ask somebody to undo this thing for me (only admins have the power to undo it), but you told me to login, so I thought maybe I'll ask you to undo my monobook edit. I know we have had many sharp disagreements, and more than once you wanted to block me and to block me indefinetely from editing Commons, so it is entirely up to, if you let me in or you will not :), but even if are willing to let me in, may I please ask you to wait for few minutes because I am going to write someting about you in that deletion request. Maybe after reading this you'd rather block me indefinetely instead of letting me in :) In any case thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem Mila, I've removed it now. I would certainly prefer that you can log in if you wish to make comments. Hopefully by the year 10000 peace will have come to the region which is a the centre of some of the recent disputes. In the meantime though, we can continue to try to improve Commons, even if we do disagree on how exactly that is achieved. I have made failed attempts to use the Wikibreak enforcer in the past but having a reasonable knowledge of computing, I found it far to easy to get around. I won't spoil it for you by explaining how I did this though, not because I don't want you to comment on Commons, but because I appreciate how hard it can be to not allow editing the various WMF to distract you. Adambro (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Adam! It was really kind and nice of you. it was also brave to remove the break even before you even knew what I was going to say :). I will login now and sign my comment. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Geograph
Hey! Just spotted your improvements. I never knew it would be as easy as that! Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons matters

 * Hi Adam, may I please ask you to help me on Commons, if you're feeling comfrobale to do it for me. I am talking about two deletion requests:
 * Here's one As you see I nominated my own image to be deleted, nobody voted to keep it, so I believe it could be safely deleted.
 * This deletion request has been oppened since Juanuary 22. I believe it is about
 * time to close it down. How it is clossed down is up to you. I care no more.
 * Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
You are mentioned in a Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Script
Please unblock User Docu. The script will not work if the account is blocked. If it doesn't work you can delete/block the user account as you see fit. Originally, I was going to list only the users that had an issue with User:Docu's signature (>90). The script is much easier now that it will add a signature to all Talk page edits by him. I should have it finished in under an hour, but in order to be tested and as a result function, we need the account unblocked. Thanks. Test Script (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue I raised as to the identity of the user operating and now  hasn't been addressed and so I won't be unblocking the account. Adambro (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to wheel war from my main account. The purpose for the legitimate use of the additional account was to put this matter to rest.  If you decide to unblock the account, leave a note on the talk page and I will test and install the script.  You are welcome to assist if you wish.  It should be relatively transparent.  Most users would not even realize that it was being scripted.  It would however resolve the RFC issue.  The alternative is to let the RFC run its course. Test Script (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend to be an admin. I won't unblock the account until it is explained who is going to operate whatever kind of bot is being proposed. This, and the actual nature of your script remains unclear. Adambro (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 150
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Adambro (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added references to show that Northern Rail have no 150s allocated to their Leeds depot and have no 158s allocated to their Manchester depot. This is fairly common knowledge for regular train users.  158s used to appear on First North Western routes like Manchester Airport to Liverpool, Manchester to Blackpool and Chester to Manchester via Altrincham.  Being replaced by older smaller unrefurbised 150s has certainly not gone unnoticed by train passengers.  Surly in this circumstances it would have been more appropriate to add a  tag than to remove the comment. 81.136.144.179 (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

East Coast Main Line (recent developments)
Hey there,

I added the little bit about the renationalisation, which you removed. I quite understand and dithered myself if it belonged in the line or in the franchisee, and really at the time it was quite unclear quite what was being renationalised, so deliberately I made a stub paragraph that was accurate but not going to great lengths. I find, often, that if you do this it sparks others' interest and they either add to it, amend it, move it, whatever, whereas if you do nothing (or take it to talk) nothing actually ever happens. So I made the change in good faith, and I am still not entirely sure if it belongs in the franchisee or the line, to be honest, and probably kinda belongs in both in some way but the split would have to be carefully done and probably best to get consensus.

I hope you realise I was just taking WP:BOLD and I did not add anything incaccurate, and added a reference for it, just in your opinion it was irrelevant or misplaced. As I say, I was a little unsure myself if it should go in the line article or the franchisee's article (which deliberately I did not name, of course it is named elsewhere in the article, but thought that could be quickly overtaken by events if they just threw their cards in). It's partly of interest to me because National Express also own the franchises for East Anglia and in theory if one fall, all fall, but what will actually happen will be interesting to see.

Best wishes and I hope you appreciate my good faith. SimonTrew (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of the protection image
Your deletion of File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg was improper. The image is there to protect against an EnWiki BLP violation. Notice how after you deleted the file, the violating image was reposted on the article page. Consensus on the articles talk page was that the image would violated EnWiki rules. Also, unexplained deletion of files that are not subject to speedy rules are potential misuses of administrative powers that may result in said rights being restricted. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The proper way to request the deletion of something not subject to speedy rules is the appropriate XfD. -- Avi (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop misusing your admin rights to enforce this bizarre interpretation of BLP. It should be left to the editors of particular articles to decide whether or not using this image violates BLP. It is impossible to say that, as you are doing, absolutely any use of this images violates BLP for it depends on the context. The current version of Carlos Latuff seems to be a compromise where although the image isn't displayed, it is linked to. You're actions are preventing compromises like this from being properly explored. I have no interest any more in getting involved in arguments about whether or not this image should be included but I am of the opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to enforce your own opinion by making this image unavailable for use in any context on Wikipedia. Adambro (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think I really care any more, do what you want. I'm sorry I got in the way of your battle against apparent BLP violations. Adambro (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-)This was discussed in its proper place, Talk:Carlos Latuff, and the consensus was that for EnWiki it is a violation of WP:BLP. On the Commons, where there is no such policy, we had the debates and the result was no consensus to delete, and I respect the final outcome. The Commons is not EnWiki and vice versa; where there is a BLP policy, and where consensus is that this image violates it, please respect that. As you said, we do link to the image in the footnotes, which is eminently acceptable and should be sufficient. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussions to which you refer considered whether the using the image in a particular context would violate BLP, not whether it would violate BLP in any circumstances. I disagree on both counts though and reading through that discussion I cannot conclude that there is broad agreement that it violates BLP, either in the article or on its own. The use of this particular image should be open to debate, there is no clear violation of BLP, and so you shouldn't enforce your view and in so doing hinder attempts to consider using it. From the discussion, there is only one person who seems to strongly argue that it violates BLP. That person is you. I therefore consider it unfortunate that it is also you that takes this unconventional measure to prevent this image being used in any articles. Some of the apparent consensus you refer doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. Phil burnstein for example, who I assume you are counting amongst those who consider it violates BLP, says that "IMHO any satire, in a BLP or otherwise, is a violation of NPOV" but that is quite strange really because any satirical image is by its very nature going to not be neutral, it is going to portray the views of its creator. There are numerous other examples where individuals, whilst expressing the opinion that they don't want the image included in the article, don't actually say that they agree that it violates BLP and that the rest of Wikipedia needs protecting from it.


 * As it stands, I would accept that the consensus is that this image shouldn't be included even while some of the reasons given are somewhat questionable, but that doesn't merit the unusual measures you have taken to stop this image being used. Stop pretending that it does and stating the obvious that there are differences between Commons and Wikipedia. The consensus could quite easily be enforced by reverting additions of the image, protection, or blocks as appropriate, as is usual in other circumstances. Adambro (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review the talk page, Adambro. A group of users reflecting a very wide range of opinons about I/P issues all agreed that the image was inappropriate including: Lar, CarolMooreDC, Msalt, FayssalF, and DGG. I discussed this with some of our more experienced admins and the thought was that the least intrusive way was the protective image. I was informed it was done before for Commons images deemed inappropriate for EnWiki. This way, there is no need to block or revert the article; full editing is allowed even by IPs. Only the image deemed unacceptable is forbidden. Otherwise, we will end up with long-term semi protection and unnecessary reverts on the article. -- Avi (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a good point but I suspect the article in question will be the subject of some controversy and edit warring with or without this image so I don't think removing this image from the equation will really reduce this much. However, as I've said, I don't want to get drawn into this again and so I won't start commenting further even if sometimes I find myself doing before properly thinking things through, but I appreciate you taking the time to address the points I've made. Looking at things in a more relaxed frame of mind, I can recognise that there is little point me wasting time trying to make this image available for a hypothetical situation where consensus might emerge for it to be used. Anyone who wants to argue for its inclusion in the future can do that. I am no fan of these images. All I have ever tried to do is stop them being censored for the benefit of people who don't like them, either through deletion on Commons or removal from articles here, by individuals motivated by a personal dislike of what they portray. I can accept though that not everyone who seeks these images are removed or deleted is motivated by their personal opinions of the content of these images. Adambro (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairly put; thank you for the reply. -- Avi (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reversed my earlier somewhat hasty deletion of this page and explained why on the talk page. I might expand that explanation later once I've had more time to think about it. Adambro (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for fixing my errors; in general, I do not mind someone correcting my all too common spelling and grammar mistakes :} -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Class 159 'Wessex Turbo'/'South Western Turbo'
Dear Adambro,

I am writing to inform you that someone has incorrectly stated that the Class 159 is known as 'South Western Turbo'. This is, in actual fact, incorrect. The Class 159 is widely known as 'Wessex Turbo' - this name was given to them by British Rail/Network SouthEast when they were being liveried in Network SouthEast colours.

Please could you correct the British Rail Class 159 page?

Kind regards,

Peter --Peter Skuce (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 321 - Construction Date
Dear Adambro,

I have had to amend the British Rail Class 321 page as it was showing incorrect build dates for this type of EMU train.

Incorrectly the article states that construction commenced in 1986, however this is impossible as production did not commence until 1988.

For your information, I have corrected and updated this webpage with the right information.

Kind regards,

Peter --Peter Skuce (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

More Photographs For Use on Wikipedia
Dear Adambro,

I am writing to inform you that I shall be uploading some more photographs during the course of the next few days.

These will include the following:


 * Class 317 - First Capital Connect refreshed interiors (First and Standard)
 * Class 319 - both 319/2 and 319/3 refreshed interiors
 * Class 321 - Class 321/4 silverlink county

Thank you for using some of my photographs already. I hope that you will be able to feature all of my interior shots for 315, 317, 319, 321 and 365 EMUs.

Best wishes and take care.

Kind regards,

Peter --Peter Skuce (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have since uploaded all of the photographs that I mentioned and have also uploaded the following:


 * Class 317 - First Capital Connect livery
 * Class 317 - NXEA (national express East Anglia) livery
 * Class 319 - both 'Thameslink Modernisation Programme' advertising liveried EMUs 319364 and 319365 - PLUS nameplates!
 * Class 321 - First 321 member in the london midland livery - 321411

Wikimedia Commons updated by Wednesday 2ND September.

Please note that I do have a much better interior photograph of First Class aboard Class 159 than the one currently in use on the Wikipedia Class 159 page (my image shows carpet, all seats, tables and lighting diffusers etc... ).

Kind regards,

Peter --Peter Skuce (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Faked images
Thanks for your rapid deletion of the two faked images I listed on FFD just now. Could they in fact have been speedied? I looked down the list of speedy criteria and couldn't see one that fitted (not that speedying would have been any faster, in this case!) Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Erik9 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * …where you are wrongly accused of making "a fallacious rationale including blatant misrepresentations of fact" and being "clearly untruthful". Should you need it, I have the evidence to the contrary, bookmarked. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * …and rejected. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Schnews
I've added some new citations, can I remove the deletion template? I will add some more citations but they will mainly be from the schnews site its self. Or do you think the article needs more secondary sources? Grim23 ★ 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Class 322 to be Withdrawn in 2010
I am informing you that First ScotRail are withdrawing the five Class 322 EMU trains from the North Berwick Branch Line and returning them to their leasing company, once Class 380 EMUs come on stream. They may well be transferred to Northern Rail to bolster their Class 321/9 EMU fleet working 'Wakefield Line' Leeds-Doncaster service. The Class 320 EMU fleet are to be retained and will not be withdrawn. This information came from Rail magazine dated 7TH October.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Unfortunately, I think I used the wrong template. But good thing you already had your eyes on the page. Thanks bro! GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

please review an edit of me on the nobel peace prize talk page
The article i left there concerns important errors in the English translation of the part of Alfred Nobel's will concerning to whom to award the peace price. These errors that also are on the Nobel committees official translation could lead to English language readers not being able to judge correctly if the right person receives the price.

my suggestion as to the correct translation comes from my reading directly from the scanned picture of the will with every word easy to make out.

regards, Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsameno (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster
replied.Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing other editors' comments at AFD
Please do not edit other editors' comments at AFD, as you have done at Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy, an AFD where you have already weighed in as an involved participant and are not an uninvolved administrator. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what being involved has to do with anything to be honest. I've not simply deleted anything, I've clearly explained in my comment what I did and why, in an attempt to improve the readability of the discussion and I hoped you would understand that. Now we have the same list in three places. That seems unnecessary to me. I will continue to refactor discussions as and when I feel appropriate whilst ensuring I explain what I've done and why. Adambro (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Talk_page_guidelines: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. (bolding in original page). Thanks. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should also note that below that is a number of examples where it may be appropriate to edit comments by others. Whilst the particular change I made is not listed, I would have hoped you would agree that it didn't change the meaning of your comment and you'll see at the top of that page it is explained that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Unfortunately we don't have guidelines and policies which cover every possible situation so we've sometimes got to use our own initiative to try improve things. I would apologise if you interpreted my edit as an attempt to harm your ability to make comments on this issue. My intention was exactly as I explained, to try to improve the readability of the page and I would have thought you'd be able to recognise that. Whilst we may disagree regarding this article, I would have hoped we could keep things a bit more civil and not get hung up on issues like this. I remain of the opinion that duplicating this list is unnecessary however. If you feel it is necessary to make your point then fair enough, that's fine. You don't need to start leaving messages like this on my talk page as if I should feel like some terrible vandal or something. Adambro (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An administrator previously uninvolved in the AFD feels differently . Cirt (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, instead of outright removing part of editors' comments, in the future please politely ask them to do so, first, as previously uninvolved admin did. :) Cirt (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've made clear on the AfD page, I've no interest in getting involved in pointless squabbles like this. You disagree with me, fair enough. You've found someone who agrees with you, so what? Move on. I'm sure we've both got more useful things to do. Adambro (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay fine. I hope you take the example of admin so as to better improve your behavior in the future. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with my own behaviour here. Please read my earlier comments, "I will continue to refactor discussions as and when I feel appropriate whilst ensuring I explain what I've done and why". Regards. Adambro (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and in this instance it was inappropriate as you are an involved participant in the debate, and the action can be seen as attempting to influence said debate in which you are not an uninvolved party. And I see no reason why you did not simply ask me first. Cirt (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on now Cirt, I'm sorry if you felt the change could do anything to influence the debate. I've already apologised for the risk that my edit could be seen as having malicious intent. I don't need you trying to pointlessly beat me up over this and inviting others to assist you. I would have hoped that despite our disagreement about the AfD, you would still be able to assume good faith and, even if you disagreed with my change and reinstated the list, not imply that my change was anything other than well intentioned but perhaps misguided. I'm disappointed that isn't the case. Adambro (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am disappointed that you fail to see that rather than removing another editor's comments yourself, it would have been more constructive to politely ask them about it, first. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Adam, I am not sure if you are aware, but Wikipedia guidelines on altering or removing other editor's comments are very clear: "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.". I hope you'll learn from this AfD that editing the comments of those you are in disagreement with is highly inappropriate. Sincerely, Skomorokh,  barbarian  13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can, and have, read that guideline thanks. If you read through my comments above, I have already responded to the same point that Cirt already made. I certainly have learnt something here, but it isn't exactly what you hope I might. Adambro (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case let me be blunt – if you follow through on your stated intention to "continue to refactor discussions as and when I feel appropriate whilst ensuring I explain what I've done and why", you will most likely be blocked for disruption. Skomorokh,  barbarian  13:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll guess I'll just have to live dangerously then. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Adambro (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, that AfD is already looking like an episode of The Jerry Springer Show, does it really need to spill over onto all these talk pages too? ;P --Tothwolf (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)