User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 12

Donald Findlay
Thanks for the laugh out loud, nice to see some humour introduced into proceedings every now and again ;-) Gefetane (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC and WP:PRIMARY
If you're going to quote policy, please be thorough in how you quote it. WP:PRIMARY contains the language "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.", so I would say it is ok to remove anything that can only be sourced from an organisation's own website. In any case, the matter you are commenting on has been resolved, as a look at the article history would reveal. --John (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for the lesson. My reply was in response your erroneous statement that "this will have to be removed".  There was no "have to" about it.  Firstly it is based on your interpretation that "should be avoided" means "should be removed", and secondly on your interpretation of "material based purely", which rather depends on how narrowly you choose to limit the scope of things.   The source is used in conjunction with a number of others in relation to the size of support, so the material is not "based purely" on the one primary cite.   But of course if you want to say that the figures for supporter clubs is "purely based" on the primary source, then of course, that's obvious, that's why we are using the primary source.  It is not available elsewhere.   If you narrow things down to that level there would never be any justification in citing a primary source and the policy would say that.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is in fact the case. "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." seems pretty unambiguous to me. Supposing, just supposing, Rangers decided to exaggerate the number of their fan clubs. It might be in their commercial interest to do so. Why would we offer them an uncritical mirror on Wikipedia? The compromise we have reached seems like a good one; we can quote the website and attribute it as a claim. --John (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you could cast doubt on the motivations of every primary source, but if there is no good reason to suspect they are being misleading, and no reliable secondary sources to the contrary, what gives Wikipedia editors the authority to determine who is, and isn't, to be trusted to be honest about themselves? Is there anything to suggest what the Rangers website says is not true?  Is anyone, anywhere better placed to tell? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rhys Jones (mountaineer)
Hello Escape Orbit. I am hoping the Rhys Jones page is now up to scratch - if you could review it for me I would be very grateful. Thanks very much indeed (Aviatorman (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)) Aviatorman (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thorsby legend
The Thorsby legend is a crucial part to our town history, please stop identifying it as vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.224.133.171 (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More like a feeble attempt at humour. And vandalism.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

you did the right thing removing my comment; thanks.
I got carried away. I would have removed it in 12 hours myself - too much on my mind - busy real-life demonstrating in support of julian assange who is under real danger; in comparison Paoli Dam [like Arundhati Roy, another person I hugely respect] knows how to handle internet abusive comments, and how to play the media. Even Roy got depressed c. 2005 (2006?) when she was under much filthier attack not only on the internet; but also was being browbeaten by corporate media and the Indian State. Roy *then* fell into self-doubt for a short phase; she had self doubts about whether what she was writing had a disconnect with reality? But she recovered soon, by talking to non-elite people and real non-public leftwingers who might be upper middle class but have the proper class orientation. And emerged even braver than she was before; now state browbeating to her is like water off a duck' back!

Paoli is doing much less riskier things - and why shouldnt she? - which are brilliant. And she is street-smart enough to use the media which tries to use it.

I am not comparing the two ladies; in fact that they are different (though in terms of creativity there are similarities).

I rambled too much: what I was trying to say was that I was overreacting like don quixote trying to extinguish all male chauvinism, class brutality, imperialism, etc in two days! Irrational rush of blood to the head.

But thanks for deleting; I might have forgotten in my busy-ness that I had posted that.

That said, I might have been rude, but I fell I was spot on! ;/ [you dont have to agree with that, take it cool mate! Smoke pot or something - come to think of it, pot is exactly what the proverbial doctor prescribed for me; so Im gonna get stoned!]

Peace! Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Grant
I am new to this so I understand if I didn't quite have the encyclopedic tone down, but please don't delete large sections of my work without explanation; that is frustrating and hurtful. I also think it doesn't jive with the guidelines I have come across so far.

My time is limited, and yours likely is too, but you seemed to have even deleted cause-and-effect types of relationships rather than having rewritten them to avoid whatever unexplained pitfall you found in my writing. It is easier to delete than to add, so please be considerate of such things and leave them until they can be addressed properly.

Also just an FYI, it might be wise to wait a bit after an edit before editing it yourself. I was trying to add the citations you noted were missing but couldn't do it within the section edit frame I started with since they were already given before and so needed an additional edit within the whole article edit frame. Consequently I ended up with a huge mess on my hands because we were both trying to edit at the same time.

God bless. Ballaurena81 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I trod on your toes, I didn't realise you were still editing. I know how frustrating that can be, but it's an inevitable annoyance in collaboration.
 * The article is looking a lot better now, excellent work. I could have listed everything I was doing in the edit summary, but as it was so wide-ranging I thought a general "copy edit" would suffice.  I removed things that were uncited and that attributed motivations to Grant without any evidence.  These were generally also not neutral, in that they talked-up Grant's dedication to her religious faith and causes.  Descriptions of her finding "God's true calling for her life" and "awakening her out of complacency and passivity and into a life driven by compassion and passion"  would only be appropriate if used as direct cited quotes.   As I had no way of verify if these highly personal statements were accurate and true, I removed or radically toned them down.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 08:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I'm glad that we seem to have come to a peaceful resolution. I wasn't actually upset with most of the edits in the 'Charity work' section ("awakening her out of complacency and passivity..."). It had been my edit, but my very first one, ever, and so I could clearly recognize that you were giving it some needed neutral point of view fixing.

I was more concerned with the fresh edits in the 'Personal life' section where I didn't understand why my content describing her path into music was being deleted. I get that it needed the citation that was in the works, but what I'm still not sure of is if that is the only reason the bit about singing into the brush was removed. I'm honestly still trying to get a feel for the encyclopedic voice. Was it removed purely because it wasn't yet cited, or does it not fit? I thought it was helpful in explaining her early path into music, so would like to put it back if appropriate, but didn't want to start an edit war.

Thanks, Ballaurena81 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed that because it wasn't cited, and also it seemed like an unremarkable cliché. Really, what girl hasn't pretended to sing into a hairbrush?  It comes across as just fluff used to portray the "just a normal girl with a God-given talent" angle that her promoters favoured.  It sounded more suited to her PR bio than an encyclopaedia.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

GOALWAY
Hello, are you the one in charge of the flag icons in info boxes here on Wikipedia? I am the creator and current editor of all articles here on this website that involve Jordanian football players, national teams, and clubs. I would also like to ask you why flag icons shouldn't be allowed in the info boxes of the players' profiles here on Wikipedia. I don't see anything wrong with that and there shouldn't be. I don't find that very distracting and it shouldn't be. In fact, I find it very useful and very accurate. There should be no reason for them to be removed and also because I've been working hard on all these for the past year. If this sort of thing really isn't allowed on Wikipedia at all then why haven't you finished off all the player profiles with flag icons I've added here on this website? You have done most of them but not all of them and I'm not going to tell you which ones specifically or else you're just going to do the same with those player profiles too. You can even find out for yourself without anyone, including me, telling you. And if Wikipedia has always had this sort of rule then why have I just been told about this today and not back when I first started doing all that?! That was all unfair for me to go through all that work without knowing about this rule until now, but I have always enjoyed working here on this website because I try to reveal and spread as much info and sources as much as possible. So I beg you to please undo everything you did to the players' profiles here on Wikipedia. Because of you, GiantSnowman done all that and removed flag icons from the players' profiles! You are actually the one who started this whole thing in fact. Yesterday, after I've created a player profile for the Jordanian footballer Adnan Al-Shuaibat and added some flag icons into his info box, most of the Jordanian player profiles here on Wikipedia have lost their flag icons.

P.S. I mean it's bad enough that I got suspended and almost expelled from editing articles here on this website just by uploading images, which were not even copyrighted and a lot of info was given for each image I uploaded, like their addresses. And I honestly do not want any of that to happen again.

Speedy deletion
Hi there, I noticed a speedy deletion on my Adult Diapers in France page. Perhaps you could suggest how to improve my page instead of slapping a speedy deletion notice on it? Thanks. --RouteLeader (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RouteLeader (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked for advice. You were offered advice.  You chose to ignore it and complain instead.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy Murray
hey you changing back andy murray to Scottish rather than British is biased your using your mod power for bias on wikipedia and i will report you Scottish nationalist.

Is jessica ennis or English or Bradley Wiggins English ?

Calling Andy murray stated he is happy he is the first BRITISH player since fred perry to win a grand slam and hopes he isn't the last BRITISH player to win a slam in his life time.

He said he did not think about Fred Perry on match point, but he was aware of the significance of his achievement. "When I was serving for the match, there was a sense of how big a moment that is in British tennis history," he said. "More than most British players, I have been asked about it many times when I got close to winning grand slams before.

"It's great to have finally done it. I hope it inspires some kids to play tennis and also that it takes away the notion that British tennis players choke or don't win - or it's not a good sport. Tennis is in a very good place in the UK right now. Laura [Robson] has done very well. The Olympics [where he won gold and he and Robson won silver in the mixed doubles] was great for us. Liam Broady was in the final here in the juniors. It's in a good place. I hope it stays that way."

Here is the link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/11/andy-murray-wins-us-open

"The pressure is intense [from] being the sole Brit," says Shirley. "We always tease him about being Britain's last hope. He has been on his own really, with no backup whatsoever, and naturally all the attention is on this one British player. That business of Fred Perry in 1936 [the last British male player to win a grand slam] is brought up and thrown at him, to remind him what people are expecting. I can't imagine how he must be feeling today but he will be euphoric. He must be."

this from his mother shirley who also calls her own son a Brit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/11/andy-murray-us-open-dunblane

i suppose people know better than andy and his mum provide me with links of him calling himself scottish tennis player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovereign8 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You would be better raising this on the Talk Page. Andy's position in British tennis is clearly explained in the lead.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI - User:Sovereign8
Now blocked for 24 hours. Pedro : Chat  21:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Response on Andy Murray article regarding Harold S. Mahony
Thank you for responding Here is a link i hope this will help my point. The title of the article is (Harold S. Mahony (1867-1905)–Ireland's last Wimbledon singles champion) please do read. thank you http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=380137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.16.136 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Benclo
I put the tag on that artical, please remove the delete tag before I start re-editing, I'm still currently editing the page and it clearly says do not edit the page on the tag MicronationKing (talk)
 * I'm afraid that doesn't mean that the article shouldn't demonstrate notability. But please free to continue to improve it by doing this.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Make me a page, shall you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReivaxVendetta (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a joke, no humour mate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.123.134 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Fisk
Sorry, my bad. I'll consider myself appropriately wrist-slapped. Catsmeat (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Robbierangers
I notice he had been blocked and that he claimed his account was used by someone else. Well I noticed someone with the name of Robbieranger (sound familiar?) vandalised the Rangers talk page in the early hours of this morning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rangers_F.C.&diff=515731786&oldid=515630718 I think it would be safe to say it the same person as Robbierangers and thought I would bring it to your attention. BadSynergy (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or it could be a Joe Job. I don't care what he does, as long as he grows up and stop treating Wikipedia like one of the many football forums where Celtic and Rangers fans slag each other off. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Del Piero
They are the teams with Del Piero scored more goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosax3 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ameritarian
I've changed the tag to hoax. And politely explained that we're not an exercise book. And that if teacher really said they had to do it, I wanted to speak to teacher... Thanks for being polite to them - it might really be school stuff and not vandalism. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Decades
I thought that I had done things correctly. See extract from the discussion initiated by me on WP:RY Talk:


 * Fixing problem with the decades of the 20th century

It has been suggested that I bring the following comment and proposal here. Each entry for the decades of the 20th century has an entry like the following: "The 1910s was a decade that began on January 1, 1910 and ended on December 31, 1919. It was the second decade of the 20th century." However, the linked page, "20th century", indicates that this century started 1/1/2001. The page for the 1900s deals with this matter: "The period from 1900 to 1999, almost synonymous with the 20th century (1901–2000)". ............................. .................. The last discussion seems to be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 9#Last decade of century in 2010. Consensus there seemed to be that the "last decade of the nnth century" shouldn't be there. Perhaps we should go with that approach. There had been a previous discussion that the "facts" that the 1900s is the first decade of the 20th century, and the 1990s is the last (full) decade of the 20th century should be included, but the 2010 consensus seems otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That kind of amendment is not needed. Yes, you could in principle begin a decade from any year, say, 1965 or 1911. But since decades are not customarily counted that way, it would be pointless to highlight a decade starting in, say, 1911. --Jmk (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It therefore appears that the consensus in fact agreed that the sentences like "It was the second decade of the 20th century" should be deleted, but that this wasn't done. I will wait a week or so before acting. Thanks for sorting things out. Rwood128 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that someone else has intervened since you sent your message to my talk page. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't noticed the error!

Rwood128 (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tennis
You made the changes in all of the four pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FEWOGL (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not fair
Hey man, what you did with me (delete all the changes that I did in the pages of tennis players) isn't fair. Wikipedia is a public site, so you can't delete what I do. Think about it and if possible change the pages I edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FEWOGL (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All you had done was copy stats from one page, where they belonged, and pasted them into another. I explained this on your talk page why this was no good. You also changed photos in the info boxes to files that either didn't exist, or were copyright violations.  This is also no good. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted you're recent post to A.V.G ANTIVIRUS COMPUTER's Talkpage.
Hi Escape Orbit;

I just wanted to inform you that I deleted you're recent post to A.V.G ANTIVIRUS COMPUTER's Talkpage regarding his username which does not meet Wikipedia's Username policy. I deleted it because as his account has already been blocked indef, the post regarding his username was not neccesary. Thank you.

KazLabz (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Jackie.Lane
I'm sorry if I offended you,that was not my intention.About my "correction" of your article,I actually live with Princess Jackie von Hohenlohe-Langenburg (Born:Jocelyn Bolton)since several years.Her Mother's name was Olga Vasilchikova (Born in Moscow,Russia) and her Sister's name is Serena Bolton by the way. I needed her Passport for immigration to Tangier,Morocco where we live,and checked the date,her date of birth is given as May 16th 1954. That obviously could have been changed at some time in the past(?).I don't know if it is possible to do that legally in Great Britain,but I guess it is possible.If she is in reality over 70 years old as you suggest she is,she certainly does not look it... She does not want to be reminded of her past,neither her marriage to Alphonso nor her career in Hollywood.So I avoid talking to her about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlesaner (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. No problem, not offended, glad we have resolved matters.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Beauregard Houston-Montgomery‎
Kindly answer my question on the talk page above. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of text entry
I provided quotes from the Report which cast doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS. I didn't provide an analysis of what the implications of the Report are.

Can you please provide a detailed explanation as to why you deleted my text entry which shows the Report casts doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. The report does not say it is casting doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS.  You are saying the report casts doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS.  This involves your analysis of what the report says and its implications.  You may be right, you may be wrong, but either way it's original research which is not permitted.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I see your point. I'm new to Wikipedia. I thought I was citing independent quotes, relevant to QTLS, from a reliable source. Can you please read the following and tell me if this is more acceptable:

With regard to QTLS, the Professionalism in Further Education Final Report (October 2012) states: ‘BIS and LSIS are working with the Department for Education to ensure that clear routes to the equivalence of QTLS and QTS are maintained.....it should be noted that following the announcement by the Secretary of State for Education in July 2012 that teachers in academies will no longer be subject to mandatory teaching qualification, and in the light of the government’s belief that most secondary schools will become academies by 2015, this formal interchangeability is likely to be of diminishing practical value. Academies will be free to employ any lecturer from the further education sector, if they so wish.’

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsDoItRight (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's much better. You just need to take care that you are not leading the reader to a conclusion, even unintentionally.  But this is more acceptable, as it is saying exactly what is in the report.  The reader can then reach their own conclusion.   Could you perhaps place this on the Talk Page, so that everyone can read it?  Thanks.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Robeson Edits
I reverted your edit. I am not a sophisticated Wikipedia person. I have stated why I do not think your edit was valid. I have worked on the Robeson for darn near 14 months, though I have had trouble getting involved with it lately. The introduction is always, always, always vulnerable to becoming somewhat hagiographical, but I do invite you to allow me to revert your edit. The intro is so darn hard to write.....and for the most part, the rest of the article is just complete junk. .....If you have a specific complaint about the article, then you are welcome to voice your opinion on the talk page, and, hopefully, I will respond in quickly - although I can not guarantee that - best of luck Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to record your research
I have only read about 50 books about Robeson, give or take 20. I have no original research on Robeson. Maybe I did not word it properly on the talk page? Maybe you can suggest a better way I could word it in the future?

Your "Wikipedia is not the place to record your research" I believe is not fair and I invite you to reevaluate that statement. Best regards. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Eastenders Cast
With respect I don't need to "explain" my reasons. There is no reason why the CURRENT cast should not be included on the page. The separate page is needed to incorporate the previous cast etc. but as the cast is such a big part of the show, It should be in the main article. Looking at your talk page it seems clear you are using your position to have things how you want them. Just because you are in a more privileged position than most of us doesn't make you right. Also the way you talk to people is rude and abrupt. There is a lot on wiki that needs sorting out. Maybe you should look at that and get off your high horse. Cassiuschrome
 * I don't know what you mean by "my position". My position is no more privileged than yours.  That means if I do an a radical change to an established article and it is reverted, I need to "explain" what I'm doing and try and get consensus for it.  Just like you.  I don't simply re-do the change without explanation.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See response on Cassiuschrome's talk page. He's copy and pasting an entire article without explanation or attempt to discuss when reverted.  I politely explained why I reverted and asked if he could explain what he's doing.  This is the reply I get for my trouble.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Robeson reply
Thanks for taking the time to reply. The talk page is buggy right now. I can see the history of your edits but there is no section on the talk page for me to respond on it (its probably some temporary bug w Wikipedia). You make some great points. I can not reply to them here because it's not fair. I will say this in response to your " I'd appreciate it if you restored the rest of my edit, rather than reverting the whole thing..." Yeah, it's saddening when your edits get reverted, I will reevaluate your edits again and explain my actions and hopefully we can come to some consensus. As far as "pinnacle" goes, that's cited and its "abstract" which I want the intro to be. Please do not make the mistake of deleting uncited, bold statements like "neutralised and tagged an unsourced but very bold claim ("an integral part of the development of popular music in Britain" ... I most assuredly have that sourced from a book in the Lincoln Center Performing Arts library, I just have to find the book and author AGAIN. It's very, very, very hard to keep track of all the books about Robeson. I mean, look at that book list, its sick. Best regards.


 * btw, i revert my own edits cause I change my mind. So please do not take it that I do not value your input. The biggest conundrum in the Robeson article is what impact did Robeson's knowledge of his father being a slave have on the impact of Robeson's life - its the major problem of the article and one in which some people are very emotional about. Best regards. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sporran Misconception
I'm not too bothered as a great many of the pages that quoted the old page are thankfully gone. Obviously wikipedia can't cite itself, but it can make the effort to undo the mess it has made in the past by having incorrect information that others have copied in good faith. I'd say that being able to turn up dozens of pages that repeat this chestnut in a five minute google search counts as it being "common" and the fact that it is total nonsense that is contrary to the historical record makes it a misconception. Whether it was a common misconception BEFORE wikipedia is a facinating question, but totally irrelevant to the fact that it is one NOW. Those websites are not citing wikipedia, they are not linking to an old version, they are independant sites that purport to be authoritative. Your original edit comment was "Who has these misconceptions?", and the answer is that there are lots of websites that repeat it.

Now, having done the web dredging earlier today looking at the extent of the problem, I think that if you still want to take that section out, I'll take a step back and see what happens. It was just coincidence that I looked at that page so soon after your section blanking. As long as some fool doesn't come along and stick the chestnut back in it will be fine.Jmackaerospace (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hi there,

Why have you destroyed 5 hours of hard work?

I have full authorisation as I am management in the company and all copyright belongs to the Spirit of London Awards.

Thanks.

Kyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleandrewblake (talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So why do the photos say copyright Getty Images ? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we employed them so they still get their name on the photo, that is how it works, they do not own it though.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/solaofficial/6165663707/sizes/m/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleandrewblake (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So why is their copyright on it? It also matters little whether they own it or "Spirit of London Awards" own it.  You cannot release it under Commons licensing while still claiming copyright of it.  You can't say one thing on Flikr, and another on Wikipedia.


 * My apologies for deleting everything you had done, I didn't realise you had added more than just the photos, but I should have checked. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I accept your apology.

We are a charity and after a month we do not claim copyright over the photo's as our young people cannot use them.

So technically they do belong to us but we could not sue in court. The people who took the photo's also relinquished copyright after we paid them so they are fine to be in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleandrewblake (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Simon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hinsdale Central High school
The words I have defined were not made up be me, and are known throughout the school (atleast 75% know the term "Mort", 60% knows the "Vietnam" only about 25% use or know the word "wick" and only about 5% know the Lamborgini one, 95% of the school knows Mr Monopoly man, its like tradition, and has been going on since the guy has worked there). I am simply providing a definition to words used at our school that some may not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.16.217 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. It is also not a place to publish original research, which this is.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING
Your actions at User talk:77.96.180.241 seem well-intended but in conflict with WP:BLANKING. You should read that guideline. Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
By leaving this warning, you made it clear that you were aware of our policy on edit warring, yet you were a partisan to the edit war on The Fourmost which you warned the IP about. You could be blocked for this now. Please be more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply on User talk: Toddst1. I was no where near edit warring.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:EW as well. Toddst1 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well we'll have to disagree on that. Nothing on WP:EW suggests I am in any danger for reverting twice, over a period of three days, someone who was already in violation of WP:3RR.  Particularly when my attempts at discussion and reaching consensus with said party had been flat rejected.  Note that I was the one attempting to discuss, and I only issued the 3RR warning after it became clear that the IP editor was not interested in collaborating and would continue to edit in the same fashion.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As a rollbacker, you are expected to know what an edit war is. From WP:EW:


 * That your opponent in the edit war was violating policies (as well) doesn't make your actions correct. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition of edit warring is anything an administrator believes constitutes edit warring? Yes, I'm aware of that, but I wasn't aware I might be taken to task for not knowing what an administrator might believe.
 * Your input is noted, but I disagree with both your description of me as "a partisan" (I was attempting to stop an edit war already started) and also your conclusion. If reverting twice over a period of three days someone already in violation of multiple policies puts me in any danger of being blocked, then I suppose I will have to cease attempting to be nice and engage with such people, warn them straight off and leave the article in whatever state they left it in.  No good deed ever goes unpunished, I suppose. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't stop an edit war by jumping in and trying to win it. It's not my opinion - it's policy. If there's already an edit war (as you say there was in this case), and you go in and make a single revert that is being made by other user(s) then you are edit warring.  Toddst1 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop making up your own policies on the fly. Where does it say anywhere in Wikipedia policy that an editor can be edit warring by performing one edit?  Nowhere. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 00:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Learning: Governance
Apologies for the intrusion. Would you mind taking a look at a (in my opinion) contentious edit to the governance section of the Institute for Learning article: Talk:Institute_for_Learning The author of the cited work, who is not expert on the governance of professional bodies, is publishing his own opinion on the governance of the IfL. I have two concerns, both of which are being ignored by LetsDoItRight. The first is that this is not a statement of fact, it is the editorial opinion of the editor of a minor magazine and is not based on any reliable primary source. The second is that this opinion was formed at a time when IfL was a mandatory regulatory body with regulatory responsibilities, it is now a voluntary professional body. It is immaterial whether or not IfL's governance model has changed, its status as a regulatory body has and as such the opinion is no longer valid (not that it was ever fact). ::Kind regards Socialmedium (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to intermediate on the above. Here is my explanation of the piece under discussion in the governance section.

Joseph Lee is a reporter with TES, which has more than 2 million registered online users in 197 countries. Since 2004 Joseph Lee has published, or been quoted in 1077 publications in the TES Newspaper, 110 in TES Magazine and 33 in TESS, the majority of which cover major government Further Education (FE) policies and issues surrounding them in the UK. Neither has TES or Joseph Lee ever, to my knowledge, been criticized for being biased or radical in their views or comments on FE in the UK. On the contrary I’d say TES is regarded as one of the foremost, informative and objective educational news sources in the UK.

As for context, the piece cited by Joseph Lee comments on the make-up and structure of the Non Executive Board (NEB) of IfL which has not changed since the citation was published, so it is still relevant and it is in a section entitled Governance. The reason that there are no reliable balancing viewpoints is that none have been, as yet, been submitted.

Instead of repeatedly deleting any piece which is from a reliable primary source, initially without discussion on the talk page, I’d encourage all readers to use the talk page 'before' deletion of contributions and whenever possible, to provide balancing viewpoints, as has previously been the case in this entry.

N.B In case the refs don't work here they are:

http://www.tes.co.uk/searchResults.aspx?keywords=%22joseph%20lee%22&area=thePaper&cmd=AddPm&val=WVPUBLICATIONID%7C2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Educational_Supplement

Thanks again, LetsDoItRight (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Glasgow Guardian Refs
Hey,

I noticed you added a refimprove box to the alumni, should I try to reference them directly from the paper and the relevant articles? I don't see any other way to do this. I didn't add any alumni though and the list's been there for a long time. I didn't change anything to the history section either, just try to correct and reference this.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avryll (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's tricky. What you really need is separate articles about each individual, mentioning their involvement with the paper.  As a primary source, cites from the paper itself are not ideal, but better than nothing.   I'm not suggesting that either section, or anything in them, should be removed, just that improvement to these issues would benefit the article.  Anything you can do in this direction would be great, thanks.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted User:Avryll that you created and moved your TB message to User talk:Avryll. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. Both empty pages. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

More edit warring
I saw this series of edits: and am very disappointed that you didn't even leave a talk page message for the editor you ware reverting for the second time over that EL. I can't fathom that you repeatedly reverted without communicating directly with them on a talk page. Without that, you appear to be a petty edit warrior. Edit summaries don't cut it.

Since we've talked about this before, I was tempted to block you straight away, but thought I would give you this final warning. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * im only goign to comment on what i see, but it appears the editor in questions seems unwilling o communicate, and they are persisting on adding a fan website which last time i checked isnt allowed, so reverting with a summary seems fine, but what is fine to one admin might not be to another, maybe you should have another admin review it before any block and see if another unvolved admin thinks the same thata block would be neccessary. im not saying escape is right or wrong nor am i am saying you are right or wrong only giving outside prosective on it :) Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is possible basis that can you assert that the editor is unwilling to communicate. Nobody has ever posted on user talk: Cih997.  It appears that nobody is willing to communicate with Cih997.


 * BTW, my interaction here is in no way WP:INVOLVED. "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." Toddst1 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * im aware, but if you are saying all communication should be via a user talk page your basically saying a talk page of the article and the summary box are useless, if escape hasnt been even leaving comments on the revert or tried to communicate on the article talk page, i take back my statement but it seems ot me from what i have seen escape has at least on the summary box, but as i said it all in the eye of the beholder some admins would accept that but some dnt, again if escape hasn't even done the article talk or summary box then i take back my comments and apogolises Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * you seem more involved than just issuing warnings you have been communication with escape above this, to me that makes you invovled but if you decided to ban that your choice but i wouldnt want your decisions challenged on teh basis your personally involved Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have referred to |the edit history. Indeed, this is my second revert.  The reason I didn't leave a message for User:Cih997 is because my first revert was a week ago.  I do hundreds of edits in the course of a week, and I am sorry, but I do not remember every single one-off revert.   I have no particular memory of the first revert, so had no reason to believe that Toddst1's unique take on edit warring would be bothered with this revert.  Had I realised that it was the second revert I probably would have communicated with User:Cih997, but I probably would have still reverted it, as I do not believe applying guidelines twice, a week apart, constitutes "edit warring", or is in any way prohibited by WP:EW.
 * How far back in future do I have to check before every revert I may do? Some good faith, but bad, edits on some pages are repeated many times, by many editors, over many years.  I'm afraid I shan't be able to help Wikipedia apply its guidelines and policy in future if I can't be sure it's not a repeat of what I did in 2008.
 * If Toddst1 insists on auditing my edits in this way I would request that they are reviewed by someone else. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same edit has no time bounds. Edit wars can be fast or slow moving. I've seen some stretch over months with a revert happening at intervals of 5+ weeks and more than once seen people returning from a 1 year edit warring block, repeating the edit that got them blocked and be reblocked. From WP:EW:


 * Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. It's as plain as that. "Repeatedly" fore-mostly means a number of times and "override each other's" also must mean an element of it being done purposefully. As I noted above I was not aware that this was the second time I had reverted it. This was a mistake on my part, but an understandable one given the time that had elapsed. People can make these errors, this is why lee-way is given and a threshhold of 3RR is applied. On any part, I did clearly indicate my reasons for both my reverts of these good faith edits, so you had absolutely no reason for coming over to my talk page waving your block stick.

You appear to have lost sight of the purpose of Wikipedia. We're creating an encyclopaedia here. That's the purpose. We are not here to create a playground for you to create your own idiosyncratic take on policies and strutting about flexing your admin muscles. I am aware that admins attract complaints, but a review of your talk page suggests you have a particularly heavy-handed way of enforcing what you believe is policy. Perhaps you should go and reflect on what your purpose here is, re-examine the policies using English as she is understood by the rest of us, and stop getting in the way of those who are contributing?

Just to spell out my actions for you;


 * This edit was not edit warring. It was my second revert in three days on an editor who was way over 3RR on this article, had rudely rejected a direct appeal by myself to discuss his edit, and had a constant history of insulting other editors in his edit summaries.  By your own (somewhat variable and ill-defined) definitions that is being disruptive. Issuing a warning to me because it was my second revert is not according to Wikipedia policy and frankly ridiculous.
 * This edit was not edit warring. It was removing a violation of WP:ELNO, as I indicated in my summary.  At the time I was unaware it was actually the second time I had reverted it, the first time being a week earlier.  That was my mistake, but declaring it as edit warring and threatening a block is again not according to policy and utterly ridiculous.

-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Phoenix Lodge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article  Phoenix Lodge  is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ Phoenix Lodge  until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cultural icon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)