User talk:AthenaM

Geoff Hoon
I have reverted your edits to the Geoff Hoon article as the whole paragraph is a word-for-word copy from the source. To avoid problems with copyright, material from external sources needs to be rewritten in your own words. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Section re-written using my own words.--AthenaM (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Gove
While the article you referenced is interesting and notable, please can you keep your editorialising comments under control? Thanks. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies but certainly seemed like Gove had taken something at the time? He surely can't be sober when saying such things. --AthenaM (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Oborne/BNP
I have reverted your redaction of the BNP criticism of Peter Oborne. Like them or not (personally I don't) the BNP is an established facet of the British political scene and has as much right to criticise as the next collective.

Also, I'm in touch with Peter Oborne, he has read his Wiki entry, is satisfied, and he welcomes the inclusion of such criticism.

Lomcevak (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to reply to these messages and if writing on my own page is correct, but anyway - I disagree that the BNP is 'an established facet of the British political scene and has as much right to criticise as the next collective". They are a party made up of fascists with a long history of violent, criminal convictions. And this isn't 'fascist' in an exaggerated hysterical sense but in a very real sense. The BNP's sole aim is to target and spread hatred of vulnerable minority groups - they desire an all-white Britain and a ban on homosexuality for starters. I'm not sure if you are a moderator or not, but if you are content with Wikipedia being filled up with the ramblings of a Nazi-sympathising party then so be it. I don't believe they have a 'right' to any platform whatsoever. AthenaM (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Writing on your own page is just one way to communicate. If Wikipedians are sufficiently involved, then, rest assurred, they will be on your pages (and, quite possibly, several others).


 * Now, to the issue, with respect, as far as Wiki is concerned, your comments, although useful in underlining issues, don't withstand scrutiny. You argue that BNP is not an 'established facet' yet the facts are that Wiki gives and maintains a considerable article on the BNP, viz.:
 * http://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party whether (as I said) you like them or not (I have good reasons for disliking fascists/Nazis since many of my friends and relations were stuffed into the ovens in the creations of Hell on Earth like Auschwitz near Oświęcim.)


 * To stifle 'them' (as distinct from 'us' - and I count you as one of 'us' my friend), is to do them a favor.


 * Give them all the rope, I say, that they can end-up on the gallows (metaphorically speaking now, after Nuremburg) swinging and, eventually, speechless.

Take care, friend ... Lomcevak (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for info re. Wiki.

Re: BNP. I think in a normal, rational society I might agree that all we need to do is 'give them enough rope'. However as our media has shown time after time, they cannot be trusted to inform the public with regards the true nature of this party. The BNP are always painted in a harmless light by the BBC & co. They are the 'anti-immigration' party, not the hardened Nazi party. Each time a fascist is caught plotting terrorist acts, the mainstream media turns a blind eye. Look at the case of Robert Cottage and his accomplice as one such example of this. This should have produced screaming headlines but there was not a peep. There have been many such cases that never make it further than a few lines in a local newspaper. The far-right are useful to the state and so the establishment would rather they grow in size in order to keep the left in check. The public will never be given a true picture of what the BNP are all about if they rely on the mainstream media. Therefore, every time the BNP are given a platform, it is a platform in the context of a lie. They get away with lying through their teeth about what motivates them. The media are only too happy to scaremonger and scapegoat minorities - indeed they are themselves helping to boost the BNP's popularity. We have a deranged media that consistently prove they are not on 'our' side. That is one of the reasons why I believe in 'no platform' for fascists. AthenaM (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Seymours mugshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Seymours mugshot.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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Seymours mugshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Seymours mugshot.jpg, which you've sourced to an unnamed author. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. &mdash;innotata 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Richard Seymour May 2011.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Richard Seymour May 2011.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add permission pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 09:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)