User talk:Hubertgrove

Welcome!

 * }

Are you new here?
Just a thought here, are you a new editor? If so let me know and I will do what I can to help. Also please check the Battle of Jutland talk page, we have a lot of discussions about what goes on with the battle, at no time are any of my comments to be taken personally, I might have questions about the source, I don't have questions about your integrity. Sometimes I may be right and there have been times when I was wrong, but its not a personal thing.Tirronan (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be dishonest. Of course your pursuit of me on this issue has been personal. You have been aggressive, abusive and ignorant throughout. Other editors have seen this and already commented unfavourably upon it. Hubertgrove (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tirronan
Hello.I've noticed that Tirronan seems to have been attacking your edits over the last few months. Well, I've been having the same problem. He keeps reverting my properly cited, verifiable edit to the War of 1812 page. He claims that it is vandalism, my own theories,and various other things. It isn't any of them. He seems to have done the same thing to you.It seems to be a recurring problem .I wonder if other editors have been having this problem. Ronald Wenonah (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's a bully and abusive, and seems to have nothing to do except to pursue vindictive little campaigns against other editors with whom he disagrees. In the end, I decided to stop editing on Wikipedia in order to avoid him. 17:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hubergrove it is my hope that someday that you will understand Wikipedia policies and how they work. Objecting to your edits is not a personal attack though you seem unable to tell the difference.  For the record, if I have at any time appeared to have gotten personal with my objections then you have my unfettered appology, that was not my intent.  However I strongly suggest that you read and take to heart No personal attacks No personal remarks Civility.  I've been editing here for years, and sometimes I and other editors disagree, it should remain professional in its conduct.  If you find yourself unable to remain civil in a disagreement without the argument becoming personal then I suggest moving on.  Every single thing that is written in the project is subject to editing if you can not obide by that you are not going to be happy here.  I truly do wish you the best, we do need good editors on here, but you have to be a bit thick skinned and realise we are not out to get you personally so long as you don't attack other editors.Tirronan (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not initiate this conversation with you, and I don't wish to prolong it. I have no intention of moving on. I think you're mentally ill and I'm certain you'll eventually be proscribed. Till then, leave me alone and don't post on my talk page. Hubertgrove (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I guess we are not going to be the close personal friends that I had hoped for, however lets us both desist form talking about each other was well then. Best of luck.Tirronan (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but if I'm asked what experience I've had of you, I'm going to say. Now please leave my talk page. Hubertgrove (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

First proof of some sort of intelligence trap.
I never did stop digging eventually I found a reference to by Hall to a trap set by propaganda and rumor in the Falklands Island Campaign. You will find it on page 77 in Room #40. The author postulates that it was well within the services potential to have planted rumors and information leading to the impression that the base had no defenses (True) and no warships there (false). Regardless, it is proof that a intelligence trap was possibly laid, and since it didn't reveal the code had been broken even falls within high probability of having happened, secret operations of that type are stock in trade even to this day. It mentions in particular notes left by Hall on the event. My last communication with you but I thought you would want to know.Tirronan (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Eric Hobsbawm, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (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) 10:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Online doctor


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Online doctor. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Telemedicine. 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 Telemedicine - 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 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. Gsingh (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gsingh, for taking an interest in my article on Onlie Doctor. I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to review my article.


 * I must tell you Online Doctor is significantly different both in content and nature from Telemedicine - and that therefore I will be contesting your proposalto delete my article.


 * I am disappointed that you chose to nominate the article for speedy deletion rather than standard deletion, that you chose not to communicate with me first and that you inform me that I cannot remove the 'Speedy Deletion' tag myself. However, I am certain that all these things are simple oversights. If in future you would like someone to review your own 'Speedy Deletion' tahs, I will willing help you if asked.


 * As you recommend, I will be contesting your attempt to delete my article without offering any attempts at revision, merger or other editorial soluions. I am looking forward, as you must be too, to on of those long, friendly Wikipedia argle-bargles. Hubertgrove (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pointless
Please read this. It was most amusing to see you trying to persuade yourself not to delete the images. Also, if you can get properly licensed images, do not insult Wikipedia by uploading thumbnails, gives us the originals and to the Commons of course. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, RHaworth. My name is Alex Clarke and I post under the name Hubertgrove. I am currently preparing a Wiki entry on the family law barrister Joanna Toch - a woman extremely well known in the field of family law. I have uploaded two images - one a profile portrait of Joanna Toch and one her rowing (she is also an Olympic rower). I have specific, written permission from Ms. Toch to use both images - permission that conforms to Wiki's own guidelines on copyright usage.


 * However, when I logged in later this afternoon, I found that you had deleted these images and posted this message which strikes me as being rather rude:


 * Please read this. It was most amusing to see you trying to persuade yourself not to delete the images. Also, if you can get properly licensed images, do not insult Wikipedia by uploading thumbnails, gives us the originals and to the Commons of course. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * - Firstly, your message (on my page) seems to be in reply to a post I wrote to someone else contesting the deletion of an article I wrote. That post was not to you as you can see by the date (3rd Jan 2012)


 * - Secondly, I repeat again that I have specific and written permission by Ms. Toch to use these images.


 * - Thirdly, these images are NOT thumbnails but specifically sized images (which I sized myself) for maximum space efficiency in the entry I am writing and storage efficiency on Wiki servers. Under wiki's own guidelines, these images do represent the original and are not eligible for uploading to the Commons.


 * Therefore, please could you reinstate the images - and allow me to continue creating this profile without further editing (so long, of course as it conforms to Wiki guidlines and standards)? Please note that this message is couched in respectful and courteous terms. Hubertgrove (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Hubertgrove (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think I was replying to a message from January? I was trying to help you because I had deleted three of your uploads, at your request. Did you actually read this message? Please get it into your head that "the use of this file is permitted only on Wikipedia" is not an acceptable condition. Images of the sort you uploaded (they are inappropriate for fair-use rationales) must be released under an appropriate licence - typically CC-BY-SA. If the copyright holder is not willing to release them under that licence, then they may not be uploaded. If they are willing, read this about confirming their permission.

"Under wiki's own guidelines, these images do represent the original and are not eligible for uploading to the Commons." Please point me to these alleged guidelines. The guidelines I see say that images should be uploaded at the highest resolution available. The MediaWiki software is very good at scaling them to fit in articles.

Please do not post messages in two places - I usually watch talk pages where I have left messages. If I don't respond, just use talkback to alert me. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying to my message, Roger. I thought that you were responding to an earlier post that you assumed was aimed at you because the tone of your message to me was rude and I could see no reason why that should be unless you believed I had somehow offended you in an earlier message.


 * I don't want an argument with you - and I certainly don't want you to think that I am being discourteous or offensive to you now. I am a relatively inexperienced Wiki editor and this is the first time I have attempted to upload images. If I have made a mistake and therefore contravened Wiki guidelines, then obviously I will try to rectify them.


 * So I say again. I have the copyright holder's permission to post these images. These images are original (at least, the copies I have been given are original) and they have been sized by me for use in an article I am writing. As you have directed, I will upload them to the Commons and THEN try to insert them in the article. Now, if you have any specific advice to me that will prevent you from again deleting these images, I would be grateful if you could tell me now so that I do not waste any more of your time. Hubertgrove (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Its all right, I don't have admin rights on the Commons. But to save someone else deleting them, tell me what licence you propose to apply and tell me that you are going to confirm permission as described in this note. I still think it is parsimonious to upload anything but the highest resolution available. Be aware that both images are prima-facie copyright violations: portrait from joannatoch.com which is clearly marked "© all rights reserved" and the rowing pic from this image on this page. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Roger - and thank you for your detective work. I know where both images come from because I was directed by Ms. Toch as to where I could find them. I have sent an email to Ms. Toch, conforming to the Rights Permission Letter stipulated here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed


 * However, I have not received a reply because it is, of course, extremely late in the day. I cannot upload her original permission document since it does not conform to Wiki permission guidelines. However, I can expect an email return tomorrow which I will then email to Commons uploads to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". I hope that will suffice.


 * As to which specific licence you would like me to use, I am not certain. Would CC-BY-SA be appropriate? If not, which licence would you suggest?


 * Thank you Hubertgrove (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Did I suggest CC-BY-SA above? Why do you ask me again? Permission from Joanna is fine for her portrait. What about the rowing pic? I cannot believe that she holds the copyright for that. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Why do you ask me again?" I am asking because you have taken a personal interest in this entry. Please remember you are talking to a human being making a sincere attempt to contribute to the Wikipedia community and conform to Wiki standards and guidelines. Using peremptory and condescending language is unfriendly.


 * To continue: I have approached Ms. Toch again for her permissions using the Wiki-formatted letter. Her clerk tells me she is travelling on the circuit and cannot attend the letter until after the weekend. I have also - because I somehow thought you might take the most legalistic view of the matter - approached Thames Valley Rowing Club for their permission to use the picture they feature; the Wiki-formatted letter has been emailed to the Club Secretary. Hubertgrove (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey!
Hubertgrove, Rhaworth doesn't reply in January! So, Who on earth are you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Who I am is mentioned in the section above this one. Hubertgrove (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Barclay brothers
Hubert, you seem to have got yourself into a right state over the Barclay brothers' tax affairs. Advice: Your personal tax adviser ... Wildfowl (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Calm down.
 * 2) Find out the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.
 * 3) Find out the difference between tax avoidance and aggressive tax avoidance. The former is what any ordinary person might do, e.g. using ISAs (in the UK). The latter includes stuff like using tax havens, using multiple tax jurisdictions, using tax advisers, tax accountants, tax lawyers, etc – i.e. what billionaires like the Barclays do.
 * 4) Don't take it too seriously anyway – life's too short.


 * Please don't be patronising to other editors. I edited your contribution to remove the NPOV language. 'Aggressive' is hostile and condemnatory language. You say there is a distinction between 'what any ordinary people might do' and 'what billionaires like the Barclays do'. Can you really not see what you said there? I remind you that the Barclay brothers are 'ordinary people' too. Having a lot of money doesn't make them less 'ordinary'. As such they get the same protection in Wiki conventions as 'ordinary people' which means protection from snide, political commentary. If you still feel strongly then I recommend replacing 'aggressive' with neutral terminology such as 'sophisticated' or 'controversial'. Hubertgrove (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Maynard
Hello, I've changed a minor edit regarding bequests in Maynard's will. Although his family connections aren't quite clear he does three times describe 'Mrs Ann Maynard' as his mother, and doesn't mention a wife. It may be he was once married to the mother of his main beneficiary Elizabeth Judson, whom Maynard describes in the will as his 'daughter-in-law' but who is referred to in the passage granting administration as 'spinster'. Apparently 'daughter-in-law' once also had the sense of 'stepdaughter'.RLamb (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane from the Perv
In the article for The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, as we ponder whether Frank is a pedophile or a hebephile, you've reverted my reversion of your reversion.

I've made my case for 'hebephile' on Talk:The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane. I leave it to you or another editor to change it back to 'hebephile'. Your efforts will testify to my awesome power to convince.

Or not.

P.S. I was also interested in your assertion that using 'hebephile' instead of 'pedophile' was a denial of the aspect of sexual attraction to underage people. I didn't understand that. Was the denial in using an obscure term, or in trying to make a distinction between underage and really underage?

Willondon (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Replacing 'paedophile' with 'hebephile' is an unnecessary and, in my opinion, indulgent complication of something very simple. In the story, Frank is a paedophile who wishes to prey on Rynn who both physically and, in US law, is a child. No elaboration on the subject of paedophilia or its various sub-categories aids in the accuracy or pertinence of the article beyond the word 'paedophile'. To insist otherwise suggests motives that have nothing to do with this film and which should be pursued elsewhere, and not on my talk page. I hope this can end our contact. Hubertgrove (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoa. Willondon (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Freed
A new edit. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Your recent editing history at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Shock Brigade Harvester Boris I must ask you not to threaten other editors in a discourteous and peremptory manner. Otherwise I will forward this matter to Wiki administrator's for adjudication. Hubertgrove (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

DS alert climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Hubert, The above template is defined as FYI / NoFault / NoShame. If you look at my own talk page, I also gave the same thing to myself. I could be mistaken but I think everyone in the discussion is "aware" that WP:ARBCC and potential WP:AE sanctions are possible for those who violate those principles. Now I think you are also aware of this. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk Thank you, for this comment. However, I don't think it applies in this case. I have been warned for 'edit warring' when I have not been doing so. I have made a third edit - if it is reverted then the three-revert rule will have been broken by others, not by me. This template was placed by one of them in an attempt to intimidate. Hubertgrove (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think the FYI No-Fault DS template does not apply even though you have made climate edits it suggests you didn't bother to read the template and the pages it links to or you did read them and don't comprehend them. Either way I'm doubtful your stay will be very productive unless something changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy I am very sorry you feel compelled to address another Wiki editor in this intemperate and discourteous fashion. Wikipedia already suffers from the reputation that its editors are poisonous and pedantic bullies, discouraging new contributors from working on content. Hubertgrove (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In a similar vein my notification on the three-revert rule was meant to inform, not to intimidate. Although you've been around Wikipedia since 2010 you have only a few hundred edits so I thought it possible that you were not familiar with the rule or its conditions. This indeed proved to be the case, given your misunderstanding of how the three-revert rule works demonstrated here.
 * Neither NAEG nor I want to see you get into trouble. But to avoid trouble everyone needs to be aware of and correctly understand Wikipedia's policies, especially on topics that can be contentious and have been placed under special rules. We really are trying to help. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. As the complaints on your User page shows, I know you are an editor who sometimes likes to use irony and rather heavy-handed warnings to talk to other editors, so I appreciate the friendliness of your post here. Believe me, I am sure you were not trying to intimidate me by posting that Template warning on my User page - just as I was not doing the same when I posted it on yours. As for NewsAndEventsGuy, I am sure he's a nice guy and is just being a widdle cranky after a hard day in his cubicle. All the best to you. Hubertgrove (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you still think the DS template does not apply to you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But of course. Happy now? 18:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)