User talk:Chrisieboy/Archive 2

Good faith
Who said this was directed at you?... That said, a spade is a spade, and I really do have concerns having returned to the talk page to find you making revisions against other users wishes and contentions. I feel obliged to give you the feedback that you are showing signs of over ownership on that article and some related material. Giving feedback is not a breech of civility or good faith - one should be mature enough to take it or leave it without issuing warnings. Over ownership is often done in good faith but with negative implications, which I believe is the case in this instance. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why have you just reverted several of my changes to Peterborough without providing full edit summaries, discussion or citing a guideline? It is very unhelpful. Your edits are a breach of MOS too, and your specifying of image sizes is causing text warping and white space in my (and thus other's) browsers thus jepordising the FA status of Peterborough. The policy is quite clear. Is it possible you can you revert these please, or would you like input from the wider editting community, again? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than focussing on articles I've been heavily involved in, perhaps you could engage in discussion? Your most recent actions today are not doing your usership any favours I must say. Please remeber diffs are tracable and could be presented as evidence of disruptive behaviour. This is something that one should endevour to avoid. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Any civil parish can call itself a town, no law or charter is needed. That aside, pick up a book on Shaw and Crompton (I presume you don't have any to hand); they unilaterally describe Shaw and Crompton as a town. The Oldham Evening Chronicle refers to it a town. It has a town hall. It has a town centre. It has a town crier. It is... a town.
 * As for the millionaire statement, the peer, GA and FA review recommended that citation be avoided in the lead section. There are four seperate sources for this statement in the history section.
 * So, why the reverts again on Peterborough? It would have been better Wikiquette to have addressed this rather than editting an article "you came across" which happens to have been one I significantly wrote and promoted, yes? I'm sure you'd agree an impartial observer would come to the same conclusion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Accusations of "personal attacks against other editors", and counter-"accusations of acting in bad faith" are serious, of course. As I've said once already,, I would expect that such a claim can be evidenced by diffs, perhaps where I've used foul language, insulted you (on a long or short term basis), rolled back your edits without explaination (I have several of yours, to which I've already given feedback and politely asked for explanation)? Not only have I expressed once already that your edits are in good faith I don't believe you could provide any evidence of personal attacks, and this capacity I believe you merely stand to loose your good faith reputation by making such claims. Indeed I choose my words carefully and try at all costs to remain inline with Wikipedia's principles.
 * Having your contributions reviewed and re-editted by other users is not a civility issue. That I believe, state and stand-by that you have fringe views on British geography and presentation is neither bad faith or incivil; it's feedback, it's networking, it's reflection. I don't expect anything but for me to have the right to say this, politely. You can take it on board or not, it's your perogative. Indeed, I disagree with your feedback on bullying (per this rationale), but believe you have a right to say this.
 * Discussion and forming a consensus is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia functions. It is convention that if you disagree with an edit, you attempt to engage with the contributor, not revert it without explanation, . When you have raised a query, I've always replied , perfectly reasonably too. When I've asked a question or replied to you, you tend to not answer, but either state the same objections again, stonewall the issue, or make an assertion of bullying - this is discouraged per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (interpreted by some as disruptive). Also, when I've replied to you, and in a way that (to my understanding) nullifies your objection(s), saying I'm making a personal attack (as you just did) is unhelpful, distasteful, unpolite, and again, discouraged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:OWN. Also, when we've disagreed, I've never reverted your changes (can you provide one diff?), at least without an explaination on the talk page; infact I've always followed convention and (failing to persuade you) asked for a third opinion (their agreement with me attests why I believe you hold some fringe views). An up-and-coming admin candidate also stated your revisions without rationale , where not helpful . Continued revisions on Shaw and Crompton immediately after calls for justification could (emphasis) be interpretted as disruptive (per the content at WP:POINT) given these strange circumstances we find ourselves in.
 * We have diametrically opposed views on such minor issues. I believe I have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and try to support my changes with scholarly sources, policy and discussion. Can you say the same? It seems that no matter how I approach any issue with you, you disengage and I'm not sure why; I would feel uncomfortable in doing this myself. If every time someone disagrees with you you intend to ignore their points and scream "bully" or "personal attacker", I'm sure you would find Wikipedia an isolated place to be. I like to think I have a good relationship within the editting community, through networking, taking (and giving) feedback, collaboration, sound judgement and being bold and sometimes brutally honest.
 * I believe (that's not to say it isn't up for futher discussion) your points on Shaw and Crompton have just been nullified per WP:V; I have provided a source and full and frank rationale. I'm afraid you've misinterpreted Wikipedia if you believe that we write articles according to one's own beliefs and disregard, or even disrepect, scholarly citation. Indeed, I'm merely reporting on what the published reliable source material states and I am bound by policy not to accept you personally as an authority on geography; you need to cite your sources. I believe I'm doing the right thing, as I'm sure you believe about yourself too, but I feel I am in a "better position" in this at this point having cited a few diffs and Wiki-principles; I'm discussing.
 * This all said, I believe a Wikibreak would do the relevant pages some good. I'm pleased about this. I think if this issue (which I understand stemmed from the consensus being formed at Template:Cambridgeshire? or perhaps was it the outright rejection of the WP:UKCITIES standard?) goes any further, we may need to take this to an early stage mediation. I would hope that this can be avoided now I've outlined my standpoint in all this. I would still like to point out that, after all this time, you have yet to explain several of your reverts. Kindest possible regards, -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Problems
Can I please enquire as to why you are so determined to get me blocked? this question is pointless, and shows that your aim seems solely to get me blocked, whether there be reason or not. The Islander 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester
Hello,

Could I invite you back to Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester‎ where I believe the issues you raised have since been addressed. Kindest regards, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New page


&Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Let's open a new page mate :) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

London Gazette
In most cases the template is better with the full-stop on the end, and it fits with the general bibliographic formatting usually used for references. I've re-worded that reference so having the full-stop there falls more naturally. It's ebtter to raise this sort of thing on the talkpage of the template concerned, rather than directly with me (I didn't create the template in teh first place). David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton
Calling my attempts to help and put this issue asside "rubbish" is not helpful or pleasant. I would hope this is not an indicator that you do not wish us to work together? I trust you read the content and now wish to address my points at Talk:Shaw and Crompton, particularly the 20 or so reliable, published sources that state it is a town, yet you believe (without citing your sources) that this is inaccurate (which you can, but this doesn't affect verifiability and inclusion on the article any way!). I really want you to pull out all the stops now and take the issue on with everything you have - I have no problem at all with a healthy (even heated) debate, but you need to cite your sources and at very least respond to other's counter-points. Without this, there is little scope (in my view) that your preferences will be implimented at all. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting involved with this issue any further. In my own personal opinion is that "Shaw" is a town within the civil parish of "Shaw and Crompton". Just like Edgworth is a town within the civil parish of North Turton.
 * If these contributors want to believe S&C is a town, I'm not arguing with them. I know S&C is only a civil parish and has a number of settelments within it. Regards Cayden  (talk)  14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette
I notice you have been involved in some talk page discussions recently, the tone of which has not been entirely in the spirit of collaboration and consensus forming. This is a fundamental part of the Wikipedia project. Please take a moment to read the links provided in the welcome message of 6 May 2007: User talk:Chrisieboy, in particular Etiquette. These guidelines help us all work together to produce an encyclopaedia in a positive and constructive way, not underpinned by conflict and confrontation. MRSC • Talk 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The matter on this page (regarding the addition of county boroughs) has been concluded to my satisfaction. MRSC • Talk 14:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Explain your reasons at Template talk:England counties. MRSC • Talk 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages
Removing comments form talk pages (other than your own) is deemed vandalism according to WP policy, particularly when later comments have followed them. Correct form is to use strikethrough to indicate comments that you wish to retract. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC) It is vandalism - read the policy: WP:VAN. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not if they are your own comments left in error! Chrisieboy (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you can use strike-through to indicate that you withdraw them. But removing them completely places later comments in a different context, hence the policy. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see this diff: where you clearly deleted my comment. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.152.13 (talk)


 * That was just an error on my part as you are no doubt aware. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly would I be aware of that? You removed my comment, and then accused me of lying. Are you going to appologise for that? 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but I am going to pursue this! Chrisieboy (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Leeds and City of Leeds
Leeds is the name of the city. City of Leeds is the title of the much wider metropolitan district. The same applies to Bradford and Wakefield. Think of Leeds as being like the bullseye of a dartboard with the metro district being like the whole dartboard. Leeds city is the administrative centre of the metro district. I hope these comments have helped. 21 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.106.131 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,Chrisieboy. Please can you tell me if there is an article on Wikipedia about the legal definitions of City, Town,County, etc in the UK. I have watched your defence of some of these terms with interest. I personally think many edits are made in good faith by people who are not aware of the distinctions. I wrote this recently to explain some of these edits. Not an excuse for inaccuracy, nevertheless.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your help.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jza84
I noticed your situation with the above user, as a result of asimilar overbearing drama I had from the user, I seldom edit wp now just the odd item. I found the users attitude quite appauling. Best wishes Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith
I had actually overlooked that point you made on the talk page. Please assume good faith as there's little to be gained by not doing so (as per here). The message you left was quite respectful and permissable, but the summary could've been rephrased. --Jza84 | Talk  17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester (UK Parliament constituency)
Hi Chrisieboy. You have recently changed all the members for this seat prior to 1859 into Whigs. Unfortunately most of them were actually Radicals rather than Whigs. We'd left it all as Liberals due to the fact that no one on the project had a reliable list of who was from which grouping. Do you have such a listing so we can assign each of them their correct tag? Thanks - Gallo glass  22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Borough status
Hello Chrisieboy,

Regarding Manchester (and the City of Salford), the city has full Borough status in the United Kingdom. In the London Gazette for 1 April 1974 you will find the following:

City status is an add-on to borough status. The borough charter (which the council applies for) preserves the mayoralty and any other ceremonial functions. City status is done by the exercise of royal prerogative and does not remove mayorality or ceremonial status.

Every metropolitan district has borough status, and is correctly described as a metropolitan borough. I hope that helps, --Jza84 | Talk  14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's a common mistake/misconception (one I've made in the past, but got a ticking off with the above). Infact, it might be worth a mention on the Borough status in England and Wales article. --Jza84 | Talk  14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reform Act 1832
If you are going to say that the 1832 Reform Act disenfranchised woman you must be able to cite a number of cases in which prior to 1832 women actually voted for members of parliament. Are you aware of any?

Ned of the Hills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.205 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Layout
It's the order the sections are listed in in WP:Layout. It also makes sense to me, I suspect a lot of people don't actually pay a lot of attention to the refs (and those that do are more likely to access them by clicking on the footnote), so may well not scroll down through the refs and so won't notice the See also. David Underdown (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the last bullet of WP:MOS says "The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed." David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Peterborough reverts
The article's on my watchlist, along with several other Peterborough related ones, so yes I see when changes are made, whether by you or anyone else. I'm sorry if you don't see my edits as constructive, I'm just trying to make sure that the finer points of style and so on don't slip by us. There are other areas of Wikipedia where I am making substantive contributions, and I know full well that my own writing often contains errors and so on (the number of typos I've had to correct in this short note...), and I'm perfectly happy for others to tidy up my lacunae and the stylistic issues that I've missed, always remember that note at the bottom of the edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly[...]do not submit it." Looking back over the article history, there are certainly plenty of cases where I've made no changes to the text you've added, or even reverted back to your version when others have made changes which I didn't think helped the article, I'm not picking on you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. David Underdown (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, mate.


 * I'm not attacking you here, but are you from Peterborough? If not, why do you keep revising my edits? I have the right to add extra information with sources, you know! The film part I made was revised by you, fair enough, I didn't source it. But I added a link to other information and yet you took it out!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrumpyGuts (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am from Peterborough. The film part can go back in if you add sources (I'll even look for them myself when I get a chance). See discussion on the talk page. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Districts with city status
It would be great to have you involved here. I think this issue is close to your heart. I hope this invite goes some way towards showing I do value you as a contributor. --Jza84 | Talk  11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of Italy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Italy&action=history

You're right, it was poor English. But why did you undo everything i wrote? I'm italian and I know my Constitution, so I put the right information; you can put the good English. You should have rewiewed what I wrote to improve it. BatLo (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hai ragione, mi scusi; ripristinare per favore e avrò guardare alle inglese ;-) Chrisieboy (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice try Chrisieboy! :-) I've added hidden text after the sentence I think has to be changed. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BatLo (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr  talk 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.


 * Hi. I noticed the checkuser report you submitted when I was investigating some other cases, and I also noted that you'd added some notices to the users' main pages, but that they were still actually unblocked. Consequently, I "completed" the matter by blocking them both for sockpuppetry, and I thought I should let you know so that you wouldn't waste time by asking on WP:AN/I to have someone else do it. I hope that solves that matter. Best wishes.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gildenburgh
Hello Chrisieboy - just wondering, did you see the comment I left on the Peterborough talk page, about "Gildenburgh"...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your comment, I'd be grateful if you'd have a look! Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates
MOS has now changed and editors are now encouraged to unlink dates per MOS:UNLINKDATES. This is partly to do with reducing overlinking (the pages linked to rarely have any relevance to the subject of the article) and partly to do with auto-formatting. It's recommended that FAs are delinked accordingly to stay in line with MOS and that any other articles you're working on have unlinked dates to save time in future. Cheers. Nev1 (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NatWest
The wording states that NatWest has branches in England and Wales. It also has branches in Scotland (check the NatWest branch locator). Great Britain consistes of England, Scotland and Wales, but excludes NI. NI is NOT part of Great Britain. NI is part of the United Kingdom. The term GB is correct; England and Wales is not accurate as it excludes Scotland, hence I improved the article by changing it to GB. Darkieboy236 (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You cite that you are "restoring edits deleted by darkieboy 1 / 2". This is not correct. What is your problem? Darkieboy236 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the edit history to see what you clumsily deleted in your hurry to replace England and Wales with Great Britain. Firstly, NatWest is registered in England and Wales (Great Britain is not a legal jurisdiction); while it does have a presence in Scotland (I checked the locator) this is to a much lesser extent than in England and Wales, because it is a London bank rather than a Scottish one. Indeed the article mentions that it was one of the first London bank's to open a representative office in Scotland, but I doubt you bothered to read that far. It also has branches in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (not in Great Britain), but they are predominantly located in England and Wales. Anyway, I've had a look through your edit history and as your user page states, I don't feed the trolls! Chrisieboy (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Great Britain is more accurate that England and Wales. What you say about the legal status is correct, but of no relevance to where the bank operates.  I am aware of where the bank was established and again, not relevant.  I am aware that NW has a smaller presence in Scot compared to E&W, but again not relevant.  The important thing about Scotland is that it operates there, hence GB is more accurate. The number of branches and cash machines refers to GB, and not E&W, so again GB is correct. I am aware of NW in the CI and IOM.  There is no term to refer to GB and CI/IOM as one entity.  British Isles is not politically correct in some minds. I did read the article, don't doubt my research nor cast aspersions.  My edit from E&W to GB was an improvement to the article.Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit removed content. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Accidents happen, get over it! Darkieboy236 (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Accidents happen when you're around! Chrisieboy (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is overly professional of you to comment like that. Grow up.  Darkieboy236 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I don't feed the trolls...enjoy talking to yourself! Chrisieboy (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RBS Group
It's about RBS Group, not NatWest. The section statest that the Govt is taking a stake in RBS - it is not, it is taking a stake in RBS Group plc. Get it right and revert it back. Darkieboy236 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence actually states "On 13 October 2008, it was announced that HM Government is set to take a 60% stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland in a move aimed at recapitalising the Group." Note careful use of the word "group." The RBS Group ultimately owns NatWest; one line on such a significant event is fair enough in an article on its major subsidiary. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

History of the Co-operative Bank
I am afraid I removed the history section of The Co-operative Bank, as it may have been an unintentional copy from Corporate and generic identities: lessons from the Co-operative Bank by Adrian Wilkinson, John M.T. Balmer.

I would be delighted if you could contribute a new section in your own words, if you still have access to good sources.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anglia Regional Co-operative Society
Today, I stumbled on a similar situation at Anglia Regional Co-operative Society. I hope you will have the patience to help reconstruct the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

... conversation continued at Talk:Anglia Regional Co-operative Society

Two City of Derry Building Societies
Thanks for pointing that the current City of Derry Building Society was not the first to use the name. That is going to avoid a lot of confusion. How do you come across the information, if you don't mind me asking? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Stanground College
Hey,

I might have done something wrong with this article. I placed a request for the article to be semi-locked because it was recieving vandalism from unregistered users. I might have cocked that up so would you be able to place another one so it can be locked? Help appriciated

GrumpyGuts (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added it to my watchlist for now. I'll keep an eye on it for you ;-) Chrisieboy (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Guildhall
The image was removed from the Peterborough article because it had no license. I cannot remember the name of the picture to put the old one back in, so if you would be great as to place it back in, please? Much appriciated

GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. It's a shame though, I preferred yours! Chrisieboy (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. You can find the old file in the history by comparing your edit with the version immediately previous. I just copied it from there and pasted it back into the article. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Anglia Regional Co-operative Society
Hello. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Anglia Regional Co-operative Society, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.arcs.co.uk/main_society.asp, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Anglia Regional Co-operative Society and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Anglia Regional Co-operative Society with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Anglia Regional Co-operative Society.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Anglia Regional Co-operative Society/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Anglia Regional Co-operative Society saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to the "form letter" above, I wanted to note that internet archives confirm that publication at the website predates ours. Copyright is conferred automatically by US law, which governs the English language Wikipedia. If you can verify authorization to release this material by one of the processes above, please do. Alternatively, you have the option to rewrite the article without the pasted text, which has been present since you created it, in temporary space. Until we have such verification, we cannot publish this material on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied to your note at my talk page, but since the conversation started here thought to duplicate my response. The copyright infringement is substantial and dates back to the creation of the article. Do you have permission to reproduce that text? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by original sources. The History section has been copied from the website above. Do you have permission to copy that text? Is there a subpage at that website that releases the material into public domain or under a license compatible with GFDL? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because unless we have permission to reproduce that text, the article is a copyright infringement. If we have permission, we need to verify it according to procedure, either through an explicit release at the article or through an OTRS ticket. We have two options if we cannot verify permission: we can remove the text or we can revise it. We cannot publish the material while we figure out the best way to proceed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The material has already been removed; you have restored it multiple times. The copyright process will allow you to "work on it" either by verifying authorization or revising without causing potential legal problems for Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

←I'll note additionally that it seems you may not fully understand why this material is a copyright concern. As I noted above, US law confers automatic copyright. Unless there is an explicit release, material cannot be duplicated on Wikipedia unless it conforms to our non-free content criteria. These allow limited quotation of external sites under certain circumstances as long as they are clearly marked and attributed and do not deviate from the source. Under any circumstances, though, we are not allowed to use extensive amounts of copyrighted text. This is because Wikipedia tries to stay well within the boundaries of fair use laws (our policies are actually intentionally more narrow than that law), and fair use laws take into consideration the proportion of material utilized.

If you do not currently have permission to utilize this material, it is possible that you can get it. As the "form letter" notes, Requesting copyright permission can give you the tools you need to clear it for usage here. (If you choose to request permission, please be careful to stay within those guidelines. Even if they give us permission to display it on Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation will not accept it. Since Wikipedia's articles are reused, including commercially, the release must be public domain or compatible with GFDL.) If you choose to go that avenue, you can reasonably expect it to take about a week for the permission to clear, once it has been sent to the Foundation. If there are problems in the release, sadly, it can take quite a lot longer.

Ordinarily, at the end of 7 days, the matter would be evaluated and closed. If you update me, though, I can close the matter more quickly--if you revise the History section in temporary space, I can merge it in, for instance. If you don't have permission and don't intend to seek it, I can remove the text.

As far as the workings of the template, I am familiar with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Typically, I will blank a problematic section when it is placed discretely by a single editor. When the article's creator or a contributor who has put considerable material into the article is the source, there is generally good reason to look for other areas of concern. I have now had an opportunity to do so. In addition to the noted source, I see that material from http://www.xcbronline.com/companies/anglia_regional_co_operative_society_limited?section=companyView and http://www.arcs.co.uk/main_members.asp?content=codiff is duplicated verbatim in our article, specifically in the "Services" section. The last paragraph of the "Services" section is problematic, as is the second paragraph (excluding the sourced sentence). Again, as with above, this material is automatically protected by copyright, and lacking a release of the material we cannot use it verbatim except as permitted by WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another copyright concern: LPFA
London Pensions Fund Authority is also a copyright concern, as it duplicates text verbatim from this site. This article should be revised in temporary space without duplicative text, unless the source is willing to release the information for our use through the processes set out above. If there is a subpage on the source releasing the text under GFDL or into public domain, please provide a link to it at the article's talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England
Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England duplicates material from [url=http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/17019.html this paper]. Archives confirm their prior publication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding my concerns with copyright issues in your contributions. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to this, it would be appeciated if you could take a look at the messages over there (in this thread) and reply with your stance on the matter, and how you intend to resolve it. Thank you, Talk Islander 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So that we've got a permanent link to the relevant ANI thread, here it is: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive494. Talk Islander 14:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Further to the above report at the Administrators' Notice Board, please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and, should this occur again, you will be blocked from editing. This also applies to the restoration of deleted copyvio material. EyeSerene talk 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)