User talk:Chaosdruid/Archive 7

Re: Chinese Indonesians Copyedit July 2011
I've reworded the sentence in question in the second bullet of your concerns with the "Gender and kinship" section of the article. Let me know if it's still unclear. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 09:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE template (banners)
Reminder! Chaosdruid (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminder
Just a reminder, starting tomorrow I will not be completely available until the 21st, as I will be on vacation. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditton, Kent
Thanks for your helpful comments about this article. Since your review, serious editing has taken place and I think the points you raised have now been addressed. Also, the photo of Odo Bushop of Bayeux has been removed, together with those considered superfluous. There have been a couple of developments not directly linked to your review - two photos in the Economy section have been replaced (Aylesford Newsprint and Ditton Laboratory) with new ones (of the same subject) and one completely new photo of the Hermitage Quarry has been added. Shaibalahmar (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hooray! Thanks very much for all your help and patience. This was my first Good Article and I have learned a lot about editing, not to mention Ditton. CheersShaibalahmar (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

St. John's
Hi, I was wondering if you would be able to review the introduction of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador to see if it is up to GA standards. The article was originally reviewed earlier this year and the only outstanding issue was the introduction, which has since been expanded and fixed. The member who reviewed originally reviewed the article has since helped with the introduction and now they don't feel they can pass it as a GA. So I was wondering if you could help. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mid-drive newsletter available for editing
Hi, Chaosdruid. I have made a first draft of a mid-drive newsletter and it is available here for further work. If you have time to check it over that would be great. Thanks. --Diannaa (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Current situation map
You could ask user Rafy, he did most of the maps. He may be able to do it. EkoGraf (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce
Hi. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you have done. Much appreciated. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  16:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

cite templates cause lag
TCO (reviews needed) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin copy edit
Hi, i think I've finished working on Led Zeppelin. It is time for your copy edit I suppose. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you hold off on that please since the recent edits go against several hard fought points of consensus.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 19:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstandment
Guess there was some kind of mix-up. Please check my reply on User_talk:Slon02. --Jollyroger (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin
Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

End-of-drive newsletter
The first draft of the end-of-drive newsletter for the Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 drive is available for editing here. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 14:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

-- The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

award

 * I thought it was King Cnut, not Canute. Have I missed something? Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 08:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cnut on some coins, Knútr on some runestones, Cnut as now the most common name and historically accurate - but "also known as" Canute in common English tradition most closely associated with the possibly apocryphal tale of him trying to hold back the tide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Design management
I was looking at this article (as you may recall, it's the one that's been sitting on the Requests page since June that we decided to leave until after the drive) and there is a notice on the talk page that it is being depeloped in tandem with the parallel article on de.wiki. So I am no longer interested in re-vamping the article or treating it as a re-write. I think the best thing to do is treat is as a normal copy edit. I have copy edited the section titled "Differnet types". If you would like to have a go next, please find one or two sections of the article that you find manageable and do copy edits. Then, pass it along to another GOCE coordinator for more work. You can post on the Requests page as to which sections you were able to complete. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer on this difficult article. --Dianna (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Chain mail to Utah :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost did Dianna's, but I completed the section "Definition of related terms," and it's over to Slon now. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 23:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Attack pages
Keeping a list of everything bad user:XXX did in your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Perhaps we should both focus on the many positive things to do rather than the very occasional misbehavior? DrKiernan (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am guessing that you didn't really mean to compare a user page that has something called "bitey admins" to an attack page?
 * I am also guessing that you want me to remove the material? If you had perhaps not been so bitey towards me on that FAR, maybe been a little more open to working collaboratively, and less off-hand with your comments I would perhaps not have wanted to keep it. Maybe you should consider why a user has kept that?
 * I really wanted to collaborate with you and get the article through FAR. I offered olive branches and various other offerings but you refused to even contemplate the possibility of entertaining anyone else working on it. So much so that I just let you get on with it - it seemed anything I did was going to be against what you wanted and that there was even a little WP:OWNage creeping in. Nonetheless, I still tried to collaborate and you totally ignored my message on your talk page. Perhaps that was best, as that response to the other editor was less than cordial. You even sounded like you were annoyed that you had to do the work to get it through FAR. I understand that you were frustrated with the previous events and dealing with editors that were less than helpful, but I expected more of an experienced editor regarding good faith, perhaps even more as you are an admin.
 * Ah well, if you are going to have such a bizarre flight of fancy as far as to calling it an attack page then perhaps I will remove it. Maybe you should also look at how you interact with others? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see why you've kept it.
 * You say I "refused to even contemplate the possibility of entertaining anyone else working on it". Yet, I let Horkana have his way. Did I revert RoyBoy? No, he's written virtually the whole article. Did I revert Bignole? No. Did I revert Skomorokh? No. Did I revert Brad? No, unless you wish to count this edit in which I try to integrate the concerns of an anon IP that Brad dismissed out of hand.
 * You say I "totally ignored" a message on my talk page. I replied there, and at the FAR, and on the article talk page.
 * Instead of basing your judgement of my character on a brief fling of incivility, the private circumstances of which you are unaware, you should be basing it on the larger picture of my successful collaborations and more usual moderate language. DrKiernan (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, let us get one thing straight - I have not commented on your character as I do not know what that is. I have merely commented on my on-wiki experience of interactions with you. Horkana, Roy boy, Bignole and Skomorokh have not even edited the article since I first made those changes to the refs. Let me also be clear that it was the refs that were the "it" as they were the only thing left to do on the FAR, apart from the image licences which I had already started working on with Brads guidance.
 * The point is that you felt that your way of doing the refs was the only way to do it ("sufficient little numbers interrupting the text already. Page numbers should be restricted to the notes"), you reverted them without an edit summary and then proceeded to leave obtuse messages. My last question on your talk page is still unanswered, it asks how "we" are going to proceed. The answer was obvious though, as there was never going to be a "we".
 * Leaving comments such as; the one I have just mentioned, "I let Horkana" (though I suppose you could be being sarcastic), the whole series of dialogue on Talk:Blade_Runner, the discussion (if you can call it that) on your talk page, on the FAR, and on the article talk page all led me to think that perhaps you were bitey (if not downright grumpy and curt) and your refusal to allow page numbers in a different form than the one you prefer a little owney. These are all especially unnecessary and against collaboration for an admin who I, rightly or wrongly, expected to adhere to a higher standard. I appreciate that we all have good and bad days, and weeks, and obviously I am unaware of any "private circumstances".
 * Did it cross your mind to perhaps try and apologise? Maybe extend an olive branch? Ask that I ignore your previous two weeks behavuiour as "out of my normal character due to private circumstances"? No, you escalated to "attack page" - to accuse me of an attack page took it from "close to bitey" to "like a crocodiles mouth" when in fact there is clearly no attack inherent in that page whatsoever.
 * Please clarify what you mean by "a brief fling of incivility", are you referring to simply the comments that you want removed from my user space? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You say I "reverted them without an edit summary and then proceeded to leave obtuse messages". The edit without a summary was made at exactly the same time as I opened the talk page discussion. You reverted, (without discussion and without addressing the complaint in the edit summary, although I appreciate that this revert may have been the result of confusion after an edit conflict), so my second revert was accompanied by an extensive edit summary. I see nothing obtuse in either the talk page comment or the edit summary. DrKiernan (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet again you haven't answered a question, you continue to beat the dead horse and generally pursue a course of contradiction with a sprinkling of rose tinted glasses.
 * That is exactly the problem: you do not see your actions and replies (or lack of them) as obtuse; you cannot see your comment "There are sufficient little numbers interrupting the text already. Page numbers should be restricted to the notes where they do not disturb the flow of the article." as owney; you cannot see your talk page comments as obtuse - "Look at the top of the FAR and you'll see my name. Look at the FAR and you'll see my comment." and "There's a talk page at the article. Look there"; "You are undoing that by adding cite web templates" (a direct lie as I only introduced one among 35 that were already cite web - until you changed them all to yuor preferred style); "The year is unnecessary; adding it merely lengthens the page for no reason" - really? (And there was me thinking that it would be best to include the year a book was published as there is no title in there? And especially at FA); "and I was too exhausted by the inanity of the argument to put up a fight" - Yet there you are carrying on as if I am that editor instead of assuming GF.
 * Admit you were out of order for the "attack page" accusation, apologise for your disingenuous comments and off-hand attitude, or drop the stick and go-out-and-do-something-less-boring-instead.
 * I tried to be nice and that didn't work, I tried to collaborate but you decided to do it your way, I left you to it - but you came here and escalated. The ball is in your court, do not simply twat it back aiming for my head again or attempt to send it off the field of play. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an attack page. It is a user space page that focuses on a single editor and lists their faults. That contravenes the policy. DrKiernan (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject."
 * It is not a page about you (it is for any admin that I consider bitey) and it does not disparage you (there is nothing on there that is written by me, nor anything that says anything negative about you). There is certainly no threat on it.
 * It does not list your faults, it is (at present) merely a note on where we first met and a copy of a conversation you had as there have been other admins I consider bitey, but as you have raised issue with it I am trying to address any legitimate concerns you may have brought up before adding any others to it. This conversation could easily be considered as pointless, fruitless, against good faith, a little threatening to start with, and many others, all you had to do was say something nice and ask me to remove it, something I have pointed out a couple of times now.
 * Just so you know where I stand on this:
 * "Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI)." I have not discussed you, your behaviour or the posts you made, I have not publicised it, put it anywhere in plain sight on my user page or talk page, nor have I used it against you in any way shape or form.
 * I followed EQ. Can you please direct me to where a policy or guideline says that I am not allowed to use another editors posts as a quote? I have seen many people putting other users quotes on their user pages - this is even hidden deep in a set of double tabs and is clearly not intended to be seen by anyone taking a cursory look at any of my user pages, in fact you would have to click on "user boxes" and then guess at which tab it is as it is not even labelled (unless you are already on the page in question).
 * I am a patient person, and I still have hope that you will simply see the point in either: apologising and laughing it off; dropping the stick; ignoring this matter; or any other outcome where you say that you regret having accused me of an attack page and admitting you had a bad week. After we have come to that sort of conclusion maybe then I can be persuaded that it was just a bad week and I will take a similarly appropriate action? This is, after all, time we could both spend on more important tasks? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * I have come up with a way to reduce the backlog on the Guild's Requests page. Each of the Guild's coordinators will copy edit one article per day for however long it takes to completely reduce the backlog. We should start with the oldest requests first, then work our way to the more recent requests. As it has happened before, there are probably several users who requested a copy edit of an article in July that are dissatisfied because their request hasn't been taken care of yet. Also, to prevent this from ever happening again, I think at least one of our coordinators and several volunteers should keep a constant eye on the Requests page in between Backlog elimination drives. What do you think? The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would normally have already started on it, unfortunately I have had a few things to catch up on - should be dealt with by tomorrow, though one of them is going to put around 12-15 articles on the requests page over the next two weeks, or I will have to do them to keep them off, either way it is going to mean I have little effect on the backlog for a week or two.
 * Did you also notice my update to the little research item on the newsletter talk page? Maybe I should move it to the coordinators page... Chaosdruid (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

J. Choo Limited
Dear Chaosdruid,

I am trying, unsuccessfully, to update the J. Choo Limited page to create an accurate picture of the company for the public to view.

Statements regarding J. Choo Limited's intellectual property like those currently on the page are not accurate. The story relating to Kookychoo is not a true representation of the facts and damages the reputation of the company without true cause. Furthermore, the case involving Kookychoo has long been settled and is no longer relevant to the company's history or profile.

Basic facts regarding J. Choo Limited are incorrect on the article's page. For example, the company's name is not 'Jimmy Choo Ltd'it is 'J. Choo Limited', commonly referred to as ‘Jimmy Choo’. Tamara Mellon has been awarded an OBE and as such 'OBE' should follow her name. Her title in the company is 'Founder and Chief Creative Officer'.

I understood from Wikipedia's principles that the website strives to achieve free content that ANYONE can edit and that the material should be written from a neutral tone. Well the comments regarding Kookychoo and Jimmy Choo are far from neutral, they are damaging and create a negative image of the company. Furthermore, despite my best efforts to bring the article page up to date and to correct its factual mistakes, my edits have been repeatedly undone and I have received threats of blockage.

I would be happy to work on an article discussing the company's history, achievements and future aspirations from an unbiased viewpoint, complete with references and pictures, if I could be assured that such an article would not be removed. However, if I, or anyone else who wishes to expand the article to create a true representation of the company, am unable to do this, then surely Wikipedia is failing to meet its five founding pillars?

I look forward to your reply and I hope we can come to some agreement to allow the inaccurate statements regarding a historic case to be removed, and the necessary corrections made to make the article more accurate and relevant.

Kind regards,

217.205.109.74 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me try and lay out a timeline so that we can address the issues.
 * Jimmy Choo Ltd covers the limited company, started by Mellon and Choo, and its history up to the present day.
 * Jimmy Choo addresses the person.
 * Tamara Mellon addresses the person.
 * Equinox Luxury Holdings Ltd buy out Choo's controlling shares in 2001
 * TowerBrook buy "Jimmy Choo" in 2007
 * Labelux buy "Jimmy Choo" in 2011
 * Jimmy Choo is the name the present company uses, as quoted by Mellon, as its brand name.

First, can we establish that the company is the correct one ? From companies house I get these listings: From this I would agree that there is not a company currently registered in the UK with the title "Jimmy Choo Ltd.", more importantly the image of the letter sent to Kookychoo appears to be using the title "J. Choo (Jersey) Limited", which is on that list.
 * 03185783 - J. Choo Limited
 * 05282753 - The J. Choo Group Ltd
 * 05991660 - J. CHOO GROUP HOLDING LIMITED
 * 06772270 - J. CHOO HONG KONG JV LIMITED
 * 05500654 - J.CHOO JAPAN JV LTD
 * FC026604 - J. CHOO (JERSEY) LIMITED
 * BR008659 - J. CHOO (JERSEY) LIMITED
 * 07611298 - J. CHOO (OS) LIMITED

I would say there is a reasonable cause to look at referencing the company name as J. Choo (Jersey) Limited, but only if that is indeed the company name. For that there would have to be other secondary sources saying that the company is the one under that registered company name.

Secondly, let me try and address your specific issues :
 * An accurate picture of the company would be what it was, what it did, what happened to it, what it was involved with and what it is now, what it does now, and what it is currently involved with. It would also include who started it, who owned it and who owns it now.
 * You say: "Statements regarding J. Choo Limited's intellectual property like those currently on the page are not accurate." Please can you elaborate on this? Also, as far as I am aware, "Jimmy Choo Couture" is the same company as the brand name "Jimmy Choo".
 * The items regarding Kookychoo.com are as reported on the linked reference, and verified in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Brisbane Times, The China Post, and 3News New Zealand. It is notable, having received international coverage, and verifiable and is still being talked about at present in the media and on websites. Undue weight would be the only way in which this could be removed, but I do not think that would apply. "Jimmy Choo" began the action and it has been settled. All these details are covered, without bias, in the article. THe unfortunate thing is that we do not have any secondary sources having printed a reply or statement from "Jimmy Choo". If there was such a statement that had been printed, then that should be included in the article to ensure a WP:NPOV and a balanced and fair article. As one is not apparent, and not available from sources searched so far, the omission is moot. The fact that the case is settled does not mean that it is not part of the companies history, as you can see there is no mention of the struggle between Mellon and Robert Bensoussan, nor Mellon and her mother, Ann Yeardye. Those topics were considered, at least by me, for inclusion, but I felt that they probably were only worth mentioning in passing, and I have not, as yet, added them.
 * I agree that stating Tamara Mellon, OBE would be preferable, but this would only be used once and where it states her name first. After that it would simply be "Mellon" (Mellon stated, Mellon did this, Mellon had that etc.). This is the case on all WIkipedia articles, as it is in most media, and you can see examples of this on Cliff Richard, Elton John and Margaret Thatcher. I have added OBE to the first mention of Mellon and linked it.
 * Your statement "Her title in the company is 'Founder and Chief Creative Officer'." would not be added as such, it may be added that her position is Chief Creative officer (if that is backed up by a reference) and it does already say that she was one of the two founders (see opening paragraph).

Thirdly we need to address the Wikipedia issues you raise :
 * You need to declare a possible conflict of interest - under WP:COI, and all further edits should be clearly to non-contentious and non-promotional text. It would also be best if you post on a talk page about the edits rather than doing them yourself, such a COI, without it being declared, would probably result in unfavourable action (as there have already been so many reversions and removals).
 * I would also advise you to start a Wikipedia account to give you a fresh start and isolate from the IP address you have been using. It would also make it clear that this is just one person, rather than perhaps a group.
 * I would agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but that must be done in accordance with policies and guidelines. I have given those in my welcome message that I have just added on your talk page.
 * Neutral tone - It may be that this does seem to be non-neutral, though that is why we ask that COI is declared, having a close relationship to something or someone can often make something neutral appear less so. As I have stated above, there is no apparent statement or quote from Jimmy Choo, or Mellon, that gives the other side to that story. That is not an omission on behalf of any Wikipedia editors, rather that it does not exist and so cannot be included. I could not even find a "No comment" in any of the fifteen or so interviews and hundreds of web pages I have trawled to try and find "the other side of the story".
 * Your edits removed factual information that was referenced and verified. They were reversed on those very points. The material you included was promotional rather than encyclopaedic and was removed for that reason.

In conclusion, regarding the article content, I would agree that the article:
 * is in need of some serious work.
 * history section seems unfairly biased towards Choo.
 * needs further expansion of the details of the company itself, rather than just concentrating on the shoes.
 * should have more detail about the development of the product lines from their beginnings to the present day.
 * should have more about the products in general

I hope this has given us a clear starting point from which the article can be developed? I appreciate this has been a frustrating time for you so far, but I hope that we can address these issues and get the article into a better and more detailed state. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed a small amount of material from that section that was sourced only to blogs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Chaosdruid,

As you can see I have now created a user account. I am to happy to declare a COI and to suggest possible edits on the talk page rather than editing directly myself.

To answer your points above:

- J. Choo Limited is the company that needs to be on the article, J. Choo (Jersey) Limited is a subsidiary company and is no longer the 'umbrella' company. You can find references to the company here:

- Jimmy Choo (J. Choo Limited) and Jimmy Choo Couture are separate businesses. J.Choo Limited grants Mr Choo a licence to continue trading.

- Tamara Mellon, OBE is the 'Founder and Chief Creative Officer' is her official working title within the company To call her just 'Chief Creative Officer is incorrect. However, I agree with the decision to just refer to her OBE the first time.

- I suggest that as there are no avaliable comments from Jimmy Choo, as at the time the Company did not wish to comment, we cut down the size of the story and leave it with a few references, for example:

"In December 2008 a small IP dispute between a New Zealand website, Kookychoo.com and J.Choo Limited took place, but was settled in 2009. Kookychoo sell a variety of items such as toys, jewellery and bean bags. The fact that "choo" is in the name was at the crux of the issue."

If people want to know more about the issue then they can look at the links avaliable.

In addition:

I will start discussing possible additions on the Jimmy Choo Ltd talk page, I would be grateful for your commentary and your assistance in arranging for them to go on to the page. I look forward to working with you to improve the article.

Many thanks,

Victoria VictoriaJC (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have Wikiwelcomed you on your new talk page :¬)

My only concern with the company title used as the article title is which company it was at the start, when Mellon and Choo founded it. If the company was the same one, J. Choo Limited, then all is well and good - but if the company has changed names then this also has to be reflected in the history and page title.

I would really appreciate a reference for J. Choo Limited licensing Mr Choo, if at all possible, that would certainly ease matters on the names of the business and shops etc. Is Jimmy Choo Couture Mr Choo's current business name, as I believe it is?
 * I have found one myself, "he is under licence from Jimmy Choo Ltd to make Jimmy Choo Couture shoes" (The Guardian 5 November 2004), but it it could do with verifying with another one if possible.

I have reflected on the position/title more at the article talk page.

The problem with your description of events appear slightly incorrect. The letter sent to Kookychoo, and the references, all state that the order was to desist selling, not just an IP naming dispute (though I realise that may have been an error). We cannot call it "small", "large" or any other sizing term; as that would be misleading. Who is to say what small is? To the owner of Kookychoo it was pretty large, standing to lose everything she owned, and to Jimmy Choo it was small, probably a minor event in a large pool of such cases on trademark and copyright. As such it is best described without sizing.

I suggest that further discussion abou the article content is continued on the article talk pages from now on - if you do not object I can copy the last few parts of this over and add it to the material already there? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ohh?
Anyway could you re-word it or something if you think its copied? because all the information is up to date and real information. But i believe i have removed or changed the way its structured, but if you still think it needs changing, could you please change it instead of removing it all? 86.160.202.216 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * why not re-word it yourself? Instead of removing the whole paragraph, and what stuff is copied, could you please expand on this 86.160.202.216 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because copyright violations have to be removed, or a copyvio notice placed on the page. unfortunately the onus is upon the editor making the changes to ensure that the material is not a copyvio. If you were not the person that first posted it, you are still the person that is re-introducing it. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The ones with the bullet points are not copied, i wrote them myself, but having read news articles online. Maybe the first secrion of it is the "TJ Hughes was acquired by the private equity group Endless LLP three months ago (as of June), but has struggled since credit insurers withdrew cover that protects suppliers in the event of collapse. It is understood TJ Hughes needed a £30m cash injection to see it through to the autumn and Endless could not provide the cash, having made a loss of £10m in the year January 2011. With TJ Hughes entering administration it has put 4000 jobs at risk. Ernst & Young have said they will try and save as many jobs as possible. [1]" bit, which could easily be re-worded.


 * If you would like to re-word it, if you believe it is copied, why not do that instead of removing it? I can re-word it but would have to be done tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.216 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Thanks a lot for the copyedit. Maybe the 6th FAC will be the charm :). -- Tærkast (Discuss) 12:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I just hope it passes! -- Tærkast (Discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mayboroda
Hi Chaosdruid!!! How are you? Sorry I didnt know how else I could contact you. Here is the thing. The article i created about Mayboroda has been deleted. I wonder why? and how i can appeal against it? I mean the funny thing is that It had been greatly modified in terms of references and the structure. I had put up a lot of references hard references and from the internet, mostly in russian. but is it a problem? Where does it say that references should be in english only? IT is a discrimination. why was the WIPO reference not reliable and other ones as well? sorry but this is such a bullshit... I had cut it out and deleted some parts that cant be proved by any references...but it seems like it was not taken into account

I mean like what shall i do? I dont feel it was within the rules of Wikipedia to delete my article? Where is the court of appeal? I am very sorry if I am disturbing you, but you have been very kind and understanding.. Please HEEEEELP!

thanks anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar delivery
Hi, Chaosdruid. I was wondering if you would have time to help out with delivery of barnstars for the July drive? If so, your assignment would be to do editors with names starting with S through Z (8 users, 14 barnstars). If you don't think you have time please let me know and I will get it covered for you. Any questions or problems please let me know. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE barnstars
Hi Chaosdruid. Thanks for adding my barnstars. Just one check: did you note that I edited two articles of 10K+ ? --Stfg (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
The Master of Mayhem cup of tea? Don't worry, I'll make it 11:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Maritime Xperiential Museum


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Maritime Xperiential Museum. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Maritime Experiential Museum & Aquarium. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Maritime Experiential Museum & Aquarium - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Maritime Xperiential Museum


A tag has been placed on Maritime Xperiential Museum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Maritime Xperiential Museum
- SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Alphasinus
No, declined unblocks can't be removed during the block. Nor can the block. If he does this again it's grounds for revoking his talk page access and/or extending the block. Daniel Case (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be adding some more pictures soon. I probably should watchlist it. I already did. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chaosdruid!!!!
Hey hi!

I have to say sorry again...but You have chosen your destiny i mean your choice to be a WIki Guide and a nice person! so I am begging you to get back to me some time so that my Wiki problem maybe sorted out...Well, I mean,in spite of your say "keep" my article about Mayboroda got deleted...This guy, Mayboroda is not an ordinary person, he is quite famous over here..maybe i could make a russian wiki article first and then put it in english..or rewrite it again but in a shorter way without saying so much. I just dont know..i feel a bit annoyed but it doesnt matter... by the way, Mayboroda was a lecturer at various universities for a number of years he was a member of Astranoutics Federation etc and there are indeed articles about him in this regard confirming all this!!! Ive found them recently they are quite old...80s you know...and they are available online at one web-site as well...it seems like even those references were not properly checked...because the 2 articles in Technika Molodezi about Mayboroda and that article (cited by Bolonkin) they do exist in russian and they do describe Mayboroda's achievments and theories and it was not taken into account whatsoever. they were not simply checked. this Andy is a very strange person..it looks like he likes arguing without a purpose....nothing personal about him...I wish him all the best anyhow

Sorry for such a long letter....I really need your help, Chaosdruid!!! Please......

Take care!!! your well-wisher Ivan
 * At this point it may be best to request userifying, having the deleted article transferred to your user-page sub-page sandbox, where it can be cut down or improved and references added.
 * Often someone who nominates an article for deletion can get blinkered by the desire to delete. Their comments can also cloud other peoples opinions, but in this case Mayboroda does seem to fail notability for several reasons. He is not a professor and not a member of an academic group. He is therefore not an academic and so has to be looked at under different rules. His work does not achieve notability, as he has not published a book or official paper, the article in the magazine does not establish notability as it is sort of self-published. The Mayboroda article was on shaky ground for these reasons I am afraid. I did try and persuade other editors that there might be grounds for keeping, but alas we lost that one.
 * If you can show the refs for him being a Professor, or that he was a member of some academic body, or national space program at a reasonably high level, then you may have a case for inclusion. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Hi! Just got your message. I really appreciate your participation!!! you know how it feels when what you create is left for the benefit of others!!! I will definitely put the refs in where you told, but not today!!!I ve got some important stuff to do! I will try to do it tomorrow!!!That's right for some reason i just could not insert any references....dont know why...I wonder how you did it!!! I ve found a few refs in there already!!thanks!!i'll look for refs on my laptop...I'll get back to it soon!!

thanks so much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey by the way!! i have no idea of how i can change the title of the article..i mean if you want to change it to orbital harvesters ..i think it's all right, the only thing is that these harvesters can collect not only gases like Demetriades thought but also hard and liquid substances like aluminum etc...and that was what Marwick and Mayboroda proved in their technologies...so maybe just orbital harvesters would be more precise...let's see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That could pose a problem, some of the harvesters might "skip" rather than orbit, similar to dipping into the planets atmosphere while using it to catapult them, so perhaps we should wait and see what else can be found first? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)