User talk:AlasdairEdits/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Ajbpearce! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! AFriedman (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Funny best man speech
Hello Ajbpearce, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Funny best man speech to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Unfortunately) WP:CSD is drawn very narrowly, and specifically "excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes." It's only for things like "&69'G!!r59***#?" and "Yaaaaaayyyy LOL!!!" I'm afraid a PROD is the best we can do for this lamentable effort. There is good advice for speedy-taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow law student!
I offer you the secret barristers handshake of double fees plus interest! Would you be interested in a couple of collaborations on law articles? I've got some biographies and Acts of Parliament on the boil. Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I return your handshake in the time honoured fashion with a preliminary injunction on your wine bar. In response to your query- potentially, but I am discovering that I am something of a Wikisloth so it would rather depend on the topic but I will keep an eye on your contributions and if i notice something that pique's my interest I will happily swing on by! Thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Smashing! I've got a few other GANs if you want to take a look at those :P. I appeal your preliminary injunction, and due to a lack of presence at the resulting case earn a default judgment on your collection of alcohol in my favour. Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A deal for you, btw - review one of my law GANs, and I'll get any law article you choose to GA :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * btw, I have not forgotten this but seeing as I seem to be the only likely reviewer for all of them and looking at the articles you have in review I want to wait until I am back at cambridge with access to proper sources beyond my hazy memory!20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's fair enough! I know the feeling - I have a dozen articles I could write if only I had access to the university law library. Ahh well, back on Monday. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Research about SEO implementation in small and medium sized companies
PROD was removed by main contributor - you will have to go to AFD if you still think it needs deleting.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * turns out article was unabigous copyright infringement and it was speedy deleted, thanks for the note though Ajbpearce (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

SAB AfD
My nomination actually was made in good faith despite what a couple of other particular editors claim. I searched for reliable sources and found nothing, as evidenced by the extremely weak sources that others have since added. I'd really appreciate assuming good faith on your part as not only is it a widely-accepted Wikipedia guideline, but there is zero evidence that my nomination was anything but. If there were evidence, people would present it, which they haven't. Ever. Seregain (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion has now been archived so i will make no further comment on it other than to note that you must appreciate that given your passionate religious convictions it makes it difficult for you to nominate articles about atheistical topics without running the risk of at least appearing not to have made the nomination in good faith. Ajbpearce (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Ajbpearce, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Ajbpearce/Human rights. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation question
I responded to your comment here: []. Could you look it over and reply? Thanks. Alcmaeonid (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Court of Chancery
Oh bloody hell! Any chance you can get me a Cambridge place to study legal history next year? :P John Baker is, in my opinion, one of the greatest legal academics of all time - hells, one of the reasons I wanted to go to Cambridge for my LLM was the chance to study under him. I'm incredibly happy that he thought so well of it; it's almost like being starstruck, which is rather sad :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

About Tibet, human rights
Ajbpearce, responding to your remark here, I agree that it is unusual this article does not already exist. However, there is some duplication of information on Tibet since 1950 and Tibet regarding human rights. I'm not sure which should go where. Or perhaps each of those pages should have the same precis, and the main body of information go into its own article Human rights in Tibet. I will create that article now, and incorporate information from both the aforementioned places. Zujine (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ECHR: list of cases
When you are back from your break, please take a look at Talk:List_of_notable_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_judgments and the associated article. I presume that you have easy access to secondary and tertiary sources that could be used to improve this article. I don't. Also, I wonder whether the list is best organized by CHR article, as is the corresponding part of the Wikipedia French-language version, see .--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have most of the ECHR pages on my watchlist but i have not been responding as I'm currently in china and with intermittent internet access. My vague and optimistic long term goal is too use my on my undergraduate papers and later dissertation research to update a tranche of the articles including fixing these issues- but its very much a long term thing. though, once i am back I will have nothing else todo (lol except 2 NGO research projects and trying to find a job that actually pays real money!)and so I will probably start then in mid august. thanks for the link to the french article - we probably need to think about what we want the EconventionHR article and the ECourtHR articles to say and how much overlap we need on the jurisprudenceAjbpearce (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * also, in reference specifically to Talk:List_of_notable_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_judgments, I have an ECHR casebook - which is probably a guide to `'notable`' case, but it obviously has a bibliography that is closer to 2-300 cases than the few we have atm, I'm not sure a list of redlinks would be very helpful to us either, my intitial inclination would be to link to the "article page" for each article and then include beow a link to any cases with their own wikipedia page ( if that makes sense?) that way individual articles could be added as an when they are added to wikipedia

RFA talk
I'm wondering if you could shed some light on this edit wherein you appear to have WP:REFACTORed my remarks and accused me of vandalism in your edit summary? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the addition of whitespace in the edit as well.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ok my apologies, I read your edit and I misread the user who made the addition, thinking that someone else was adding to your original statement in a rvv way, sorry I should be less hasty Ajbpearce (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to the whitespace, It was not deliberate, I used the standard edit window with the wikiED gadget installed, I (always) forget to preview so I am assuming it must have been a formatting error with WikiED??Ajbpearce (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose we all get in a hurry sometimes and make mistakes. Apology accepted. (by the way rvv is generally understood to refer to the reversion of vandalism, not the vandalism itself) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what "rvv" means?! All this time I thought it just meant "revert."  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * btw, as you both are significantly more experienced than me, what does rvv "stand" for?, its a phrase i inherited from others edit summaries. I'm used it as ReVersion of Vandalism, but that is a phrase only appropriate to use when you are engaged in a specific action?Ajbpearce (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...without wishing to get "metaphorical on your asses" what I meant was that I saw your statement, went to make a reply, stupidly misread the author tag then assuming it was vandalism (because it was a comment that implied an editor was "spamming" in a way that would merit an rvv comment.) Then, here on my talk page i invented a neologism "rvv way" to refer to something I mistakenly thought merited the aforementioned revet/refactor. Needless to say at this point I regret the whole matter and wish I had kept commenting on more trivial topics like war crimes and genocide where such misunderstandings are rarer. :P Ajbpearce (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

TP
Thanks for that toilet paper article link on your userpage. It was good, but when the section 'Survey Results' starts, the image on the right made it f'in great. Toilet_paper_orientation Ocaasi (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I found it from the best of wikipedia blog http://bestofwikipedia.tumblr.com/, highly reccomended reading! Ajbpearce (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice link! About adding those refs, I can't get either ProveIt or Reftools to work for some reason.  I have a crapload of .js running and not sure what's causing it (using firefox 3.5).  So it's not happening yet. Ocaasi (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Copyright
Hello Ajbpearce,

Thank you for your answer regarding my uncertainty on which copyright tag to use for the pictures on the article I wrote. However, I probably misworded my question. What I meant to say is that I am not sure what the license is... The copyright holder gave me permission to use his photographs to put in the article, but I don't know if it's Creative Commons or something else. How do I know which license it is? Would you be able to help me regarding this?

Thanks for your time, ImDaBoss3000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImDaBoss3000 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

William Blackstone
Despite my best efforts, I can't find anything to fault in this article relating to the Good Article criteria. Therefore the article has been promoted to Good Article. Congratulations! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

re Freedom of Expression Book GAN's
Thank you! Responded at my user talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated before...
...my only association with Portal of Evil was a cursory look during the last deletion review, which was enough for me: I found the pace frankly disgusting. It's likely this is either someone using the same name (which is probable; I can point out two or three HalfShadows which aren't me), or this is some perverse attempt at a joejob (distinctly unlikely, given the amount of work that would be involved).

Simply put, it's most likely they think I'm someone else. Half Shadow  21:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I found it unlikely that such comments would be made by a valued wikipedia contributor, but as it was a direct allegation I felt it best to ask. I consider the matter closed.Ajbpearce (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Betcha if it ever reached the point where people had to post using their real names, half of the internet would die... Half  Shadow  21:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Look closer
HalfShadow is the same guy, sharing the same grudge against PortalOfEvil/OMM with Schumin. He denies any association with PoE but was a notorious poster there. The sites may be down but Google remembers.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=site:portalofevil.com+halfshadow

Just a coincidence that he was the most abrasive supporter of both PoE and OMM deletions? Is it really likely there's dozens of HalfShadow's associated with that site?

Anyway, be wary of who you believe online, myself included. Dig deeper and make up your own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.186.251 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * and another.  Swarm   X 23:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court case drive
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help


 * Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK casetemplate based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.


 * Complete that template and add it to existing cases.


 * Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.


 * Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking


 * Create new articles for UKSC cases


 * Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.


 * Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

International criminal law
Why did you delete the ambiguous cases section in International criminal law? It is almost the only content in the entire article with RS. Operation Broken Trust is Obama and Holder's biggest prosecution, and the international crimes have been going on for 15 years because of the difficulty in obtaining prosecutions because of the micronation, religion aspects, and international criminal law ambiguities, making Washington Post in about 1995, 60 Minutes a few years later, multiple international papers over 15 years, etc., for 15 years because of the ambiguities in international law. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * PS - I am editing with an anonyous remote IP on this material since I found out that Gamboa was not put in prison yet, just some of her henchmen, in order to have anonymity, so I am alerting you to this in case you think there is a WP:sock situation, so please be careful not to refer to me (or other editors) in associated talk pages, as this may unintentionally WP:out them. Thanks. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will reply on the article talk page Ajbpearce (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't post IPs used for anonymity by me or any editor on my talk page, especially after I asked you not to out me for my personal physical sefety. Thanks. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I did not "out" you - you came to this page and said that BLANK and 71.121.31.183 were the same person, which in any case anyone with two brain cells could work out from the fact that all of the edits of these accounts are in the publicly available. If you fear for your personal safety you should not be editing wikipedia and certainly should not be employing such laughable "precautions". Ajbpearce (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You arguments at the article talk page seem to me to also apply to my edits to the International law article, so I deleted them. If this was an error, please revert my deletion. Thanks for the civil and well reasoned discussion. :) 71.121.31.183 (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I have listed several issues which need addressing Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fay Farstad
I have just seen your comment on this new user's talk page. This is what I should like to add to what I explained to you on my own talk page: In the case of Angola, there are not "thousands of institutes" working on this subject area (i.e. in a qualified way), but very few -  in all Europe there are not more than four or five. The Christian Michelsen Institut has acquired this specific competence over the very last years, and this fact is internationally still little known - even by the specialized scholarly community. It is thus useful that someone takes the initiative to call our attention to their publications, and the resource they constitute. I agree there could have been more subtle ways of doing this -  but your rebuff to a newcomer was in my view quite out of proportion. Why not take the man (or woman) by the hand and helping him/her to find his/her way around in the realm of WP? Aflis (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Fay Farstad and CMI
Dear Ajbpearce. I read your comments about the deletion of my links to CMI and their projects/publications. This is not about promotion of the institute or their projects, but solely about promoting the knowledge disseminated within. I have put the links on wikipedia not only as a person affiliated with CMI, but most importanlt as a private person with a belief in the value of the research they do. The research and publications are of world class quality, they are cutting edge, and on issues not necessarily addressed by other academics and institutes. As such, CMI is not just 'another institute'. It is the largest of its kind in Scandinavia and has a unique profile and focus. Please have a look at its website for more information. Moreover, I have read the guidelines regarding eksternal links, and I truly believe mine fit the profile explained there. Furthermore, I have scrutinised existing links and I find that several are quite self-promoting (NGOs seeking sponsorship/funding, links to websites for the hire of NGO/development personell etc etc.) The content within CMIs website is PURELY knowledge-based and thus befitting for an encyclopedic and knowledge-based site such as wikipedia. We do not seek sponsorship or funding of any kind. Deleting the links to CMI and keeping some dubious ones is thus inconsistency in policy. I only joined wikipedia two days ago, and obviously have some things to learn regarding wikipedia etiquette. I would therefore be very grateful for any help and advice you could give me as to how I can best contribute to ongoing pages with the information that CMI has to provide. 158.37.160.210 (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Kitten
Thanks. BTW, I am accepting TIgers on my user page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question on the Creative Commons talkpage
Hi there, I am responding to your question about Creative Commons licenses from that talkpage here, as that page is more for discussion of the article rather than asking specific questions. In future if you have copyright questions about wikipedia, it would be better to ask at the copyright help desk.

To answer your question, there are a variety of creative commons licenses and some of them permit commercial use and some do not (those with a NC or non-commercial tag). However, the non-commercial usage licenses are not used on wikipedia. In regards to the image you uploaded the GNU Free Documentation License (and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license) that this image was uploaded under, explicitly permits commercial usage, provided that the use conforms to the other license requirements. So there is no way to stop a commercial firm (or anyone else!) producing prints of this image. This is not a new ability caused by the Creative-Commons license, it has always been allowed to make commercial use of images and articles on wikipedia. However, the old GFDL license is really meant for text (software manuals) and it can be cumbersome and difficult to understand it. Because the creative commons license is clearer and easier to understand a few years ago we went through a legal process of "updating" (see Licensing update for more details about this) everything under a GFDL license to a compatible creative commons license to make licensing on wikipedia easier to understand. It sounds like you may not have fully understood the implications of the license you originally gave to your work, and part of the reason for the update was to help make it easier to understand the license permissions.

I hope that this won't dissuade you from continuing to upload such fantastic images to wikipedia though, they are a real pleasure to look through and great contribution to the encyclopedia. There are very good reasons why we allow commercial use of our images (for example to allow people to create print versions of encyclopaedia articles and I hope you will continue to upload and contribute images. If you would like to learn more about the creative commons licenses that we now use - the creative commons website has an excellent FAQ Ajbpearce (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems I misunderstood the original license. Back then, I did understand that it could be used commercially as a collection, such as an encyclopedia, but not outright commercial use such as the printing company in question. I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated. Jnpet (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)