User talk:Jprw/Archive 1

I understand you
You are fixated on the topic on hand. I have seen the proof. But, I never lose with writing the never-ending process of adding information. Enjoying the game of who's entrie is better. I like writing exercises. Rereading items on Wikipedia is a weekly hobby for me. I keep rewriting something even after it is posted. I never post inaccuracies either. I am well informed on anything I do with Wikipedia. I honestly believe that it’s simply better to state the newest information on the subject than have your single opinion all over the page. There is a certain amount of justice in writng releavnt information on a subject that anybody can read for information purposes. Your not going to find the kind of information I add anywhere except perhaps an intense goggle search. I hope you understand this.

Thank you, Electric Japan (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an approach such as this is conducive to accurate and responsible editing on Wikipedia. If you're so keen to announce the latest news re: Alice Cooper (however insignificant), you may be better off doing so on a fans' website or blog. I fully applaud your enthusiasm for the artist; however, such enthusiasm should not form some justification for you to bypass the editing guidelines which are strictly observed by the majority of regular contributors to the Alice Cooper entry. Jprw (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 News is Noteworthy
The latest news? The only news so far this year. A tour that goes beyond America is news for any Alice Cooper fan. He is huge outside America. Editing guidelines? This is about Alice Cooper, right? Not your idea on what to post or not. Wikipedia is based purely on its merits of outside contributers with details. Cooper is one of the rarest of singers. He has a big career outside America. Cooper has gained much momentum during his long career outside America,and people have the option to use Wikipedia to add a variety of noteworthy statistics on anything. Including Alice Cooper.

Have fun, Electric Japan (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my remarks on talk page of 'Peter Hitchens'
Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

and now please see my subsequent remarks in the same place
Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Alice Cooper - please follow Manual of Style for titles
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Dl2000 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for info - will make changes accordingly on the Alice Cooper pageJprw (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Please don't change the format of dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British or European topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in 12 December or December 12. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). JD554 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

...Or see my user page... Rothorpe (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this. What do people think the see also section is for??? Good call to rv. Have a nice day. Libs 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alice Cooper Talk Page
Is there any particular reason you undid my archiving of old posts on the Alice Cooper talk page? I only archived old entries, I did not delete them. There was so much old material and conversations that it was difficult to find current issues. Note that I left current issues on the page for further discussion. -HamatoKameko (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

new labour marxists
please don't add your disputed comment to the Ainsworth article again without discussion, I have opened a topic on the talk to discuss it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW we have a request for comment open on the talk page on this for a little while. Please join the discussion and put your case.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think we have agreement on Bob Ainsworth. I think Off2riorob was generally in agreement if refs are in containing the spokepersons quote. I'm ok with including all 4, but have contacted him on his talk page. Do you want to make the edit? Mimi (yack) 12:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard
I've reverted your change of US English to British English. With L. Ron Hubbard being born in the US — and spending most of his time there — US English seems the appropriate form for the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Em dashes
Just under the text box that appears when you do any editing, there is a special character toolbar. At the start of that is a drop-down list. When that drop-down is set to "Insert", the first two characters on offer are endash and emdash. If still having trouble, just copy and paste from a relevant article, such as dash. Hope this helps, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PH edit
Hi, just popped by to say that my login didn't work but that I made the last edit on the Peter Hitchens page. I reverted your last edits as citation needed and splitting early life section actually split personal life deatail. Regards, Mimi (yack) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

References on P.Hitchens article
I quite see the problem with references to my expressed opinions, but I think I must in general leave it up to those who wish to provide them to do so. All I try to do in this entry is to ensure that it is accurate and representative. Google will rapidly and easily provide plenty of evidence of all the opinions cited, as I think I have dealt on my blog (now with three years of archives) with every subject mentioned in the summary of my views. If you are concerned, perhaps you would like to do this. I haven't the time, and think it would be improper anyway. You may be sure that if I were misrepresented, I should correct it. My open and unbothered preparedness to say that I edit this entry for accuracy is as good as a reference, in my view. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also could do with your good offices at the article on my book 'The Broken Compass', if you felt able. I see you ahve been involved in this in the past. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i see your help has already been requested. i have some refs, jprw, so if you edit the broken compass article can i give them to you here? I can edit slowly but you may be quicker. please read clockbacks talk page and the article discussion. many thanks. RSVP. Mimi (yack) 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jprw - I did an undo until I could edit myself or ask you to help re-write. It was cherry picking as Gove is a personal friend of PH and there are other reviews. Incidentally my arm is in a sling hence being a bit slow. Have tested my talk page and it works fine. Mimi (yack) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Managed to do edits. One is not exactly a review but features book and from respected writer so thought ok. Now you know why I couldn't work on PH main article - I need a rest! Thanks for your offer :-) Mimi (yack) 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Jprw. As usual, I try to limit my interventions to matters of fact and much prefer the crucial decisions to be atken by disinterested editors. On this occasion, it seemed to me that a lot of relevant facts were not known to the original writer. I do think the Private Eye parody is worth mentioning, but then I also think the index is the best chapter in the book. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal accusations against me on PH talk
Jprw - Here is a copy of my comment on the PH talk page:

I don't have "overt hostility" towards Peter Hitchens and in fact have been accused of exactly the reverse on Wiki before now. I've answered his call for help on Wiki and I too try to be an editor working according to Wikipedia guidelines. You haven't responded to my points and instead call me "difficult to reason with", "utterly steadfast", "prejudiced" and "almost hysterical". I have an opinion on the proposed changes, I've stated it, it hasn't changed and it doesn't agree with yours. As your objection now seems to be personal and is no longer discussing the content of the article, which this discussion page is for, I will go over to your talk page in the hope of resolving this. But as for the relationship bewteen the brothers section I really think you are missing my point. The interest lies in how they disagree not that they disagree. They are many things but their choice of words is a very big part of who and what they are. I'd like the chaler/froider quote to stay but that's just my opinion. I think we should gain consensus from other editors on this and the significant changes you are intending to make over Xmas. Regards

Jprw, I really don't have hostility towards Peter Hitchens, overt or otherwise, and wonder why you are so convinced of this? Have you communicated with any other editors on this point as I can't imagine why you are so convinced of this? Have you communicated with Peter Hitchens himself? Honestly I cannot see why you have this view and can assure you that no such hostility exists from me. Really. I rather think you are being hostile because I won't agree with the changes you want to make and I have explained why. Please be assured there is no hostility from me and I hope we can work together on Wiki in the future. Kind regards, Mimi (yack) 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
The following exchange appears on the 'Broken Compass' thread.

The following part of the discussion (made around 15.16 on 18th November) mysteriously disappeared. I do not think it is permitted to delete contributions to talk pages, and if it is, it shouldn 't be. So I am restoring it. "For the benefit of any disinterested person who may become involved in this, let the following information be taken into account. I read this entry for the first time on the evening of 17th November, and made some revisions to it (as I always do when editing here) under my own name, clearly identified. The sign-on 'clockback' has now been officially verified on Wikipedia as being mine. I am not'clockback'. That is a sign-on. I am Peter Hitchens (see Bob Ainsworth discussion for details). I removed no factual information. I did, however, remove the word 'lukewarm' as a general description of the book's reception. I did not think the general use of the word 'lukewarm' could be justified in relation to the reviews. Though it certainly could in relation to Anthony Howard's, it couldn't be applied to at least two of the others. Nor is the total boycott of the book by the pro-Cameron press necessarily an expression of indifference. I would argue the contrary (and am quoted as doing so). At 13.45 on Wednesday, 'Miamomimi', who so far as I can see has never previously edited this entry and has no special interest in it that I know of, simply reverted the changes. On discovering this, and on seeing what I regarded as insufficient justification, I undid the reversion (at 14.29) and opened the discussion page to explain my action. By the time I had returned to the article, 'Miamomimi' had again (at 1430, without any time spent considering the matter) reverted the entry again, and made accusations of edit warring. At 1435, I reverted it again. continuing to believe the reversion to have been inadequately explained. At 1436, again without conceivably having had the time to consider the matter or read what I had written here, 'Miamomimi' reverted yet again. At 1439, urging her to read the discussion page, I undid this extraordinarily and needlessly rapid re-reversion. By 1442, she had reverted once again, which did not seem to me to be the action of someone interested in discussion. I would add that I am most damagingly accused of 'cherry-picking' reviews of my own work. So far as I know, this expression means that I am selecting reviews which suit me. On the contrary, I have ensured that every mention of the book in the mainstream press, complimentary and uncomplimentary, is now recorded, as was not the case before (Michael Gove's article in the Times, the excerpt in the Mail on Sunday the Hannah Pool interview, the parody of the index in Private Eye). I have not removed any hostile review. I have added one link (I would have added more but my computer skills make this slow work) This accusation is definitely not an 'assumption of good faith'. She writes of 'expanding the article in a balanced way', but her only actions as I write this have been to cancel without any further ado an attempt to do just that, and to repeat, and again repeat that action without pausing for reasoned discussion. I urgently invite other editors to help. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Let us hope it is now left in place. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Clockback - I removed the comment as it seemed uncivil and there was an editing conflict which was explained so the comment seemed unnecessarily uncivil. There is explanation in my edits and as soon as I saw your comments in Talk I read them and replied. We are talking of a few minutes in which an edit conflict occured. You seem keen to gain support against me rather than addressing me personally and discussing any issue. It did look to me that you were cherry-picking and indeed edit warring as I said. I thought it would be helpful if others made the edit (as you are the author), I wasn't against the inclusion of that information as you can see. As the information you wanted included is in fact included then this is not a discussion of content. I was trying to be helpful but can see that I was in error. If you would address any issue you have with me, with me personally rather than as if you are talking to an audience and I'm on trial ("If 'Miamomimi' wishes to make constructive edits, then let her do so, and justify them") it would be helpful. Many thanks. Kind regards, Mimi (yack) 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback (talk • contribs)

In answer to this person, I repeat, I am not called 'Clockback', which is my sign-in. My name is Peter Hitchens, a fact which I have always stated but which was formally verified under Wiki procedures when it became relevant in a discussion of the Bob Ainsworth entry(see discussion on that entry). The deleted and restored comment is in my view purely factual, containing a log of the times at which each event happened. My constructive and open edit was abruptly reverted without explanation and then re-reverted without explanation or attempt at discussion. It is all very well 'Miamomimi' insisting that she planned to make constructive edits. She made none until challenged. Her first action was simply to revert without comment, while making an allegation of 'cherrypicking' that has not stood up to any test. The comment also needs to stand, as in it I defend myself against this unfounded allegation of 'cherrypicking' explain and justify my edits and my reversions (which I believe to be have been reasonable and fair and which I also believe subsequent events have shown to be so). It contains no expression of incivility. I note that the person calling herself 'Miamomimi', who removed a comment critical of her actions(and has now stated that she did so) is the same person who elsewhere on Wikipedia (notably the 'Comment' page on the 'Peter Hitchens' entry) makes unsupported allegations against me, among them a complaint that I censor critical comments made against me on my weblog. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review: done
I have done a review of you at Editor review/Jprw. Sorry for the delay in getting it done - as you may have noticed, there's a backlog on ER!

Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kensington and Chelsea
The unnamed 'critics' who alleged in an unspecified place that I 'failed' to become Tory MP for Kensington and Cheslea have once again surfaced on the P.Hitchens entry. Can you help?

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, I shall try not to pester you in future, but sometimes a swift deletion deters future mischief. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Craig Brown
I'm so sorry, but can't remember exactly when this parody appeared. Isn't there a link to it on a historic version of the 'Broekn Compass' entry?

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Booker
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation.

I'm notifying you because I've just added the article to the probation--somebody did a whole batch recently and for some reason this article was omitted.

This isn't related to your recent edits on the article, which are unproblematic and unrelated to climate change. I'm just being thorough. --TS 11:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A Brief History of Crime
FYI I have begun, and posted, an article on this book. It seemed to me that after your work on 'The Abolition of Britain', it at last deserved a concise mention, and I didn't think anyone else would do it. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. FYI, 'The Broken Compass' is to be ressued as a paperback quite soon, with the title 'The Cameron Delusion' with an extra chapter attacking the Conservative Party. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Rose review, no, don't worry. It ust happens to be the case that he DID apologise later. But there's no source apart from me, so no point in pursuing. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Craig Brown Parody
If you go to the 'Peter Hitchens discussion group' (yes, it really exists) on Facebook, you will find a copy of the Craig Brown parody of the Broken Compass index which you were seeking. I tried to link to it here but the link was disallowed by Wikipedia. It's on the 'Wall' in a posting by Darrell Whitehead, dated May 30th 2009. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ABHC
Unfortunately I haven't actually read it yet (it's in the post-Christmas reading to-do list, though), so go ahead and add the synopsis, since you'll be infinitely superior to me in that respect. user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure -- but, I am out of action for roughly a week, due to exams. user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Booker etc
I'm so sorry not to have responded sooner. I haven't been on Wikipedia for some time. I wish I could have helped, but you seem to have fought your way through the usual blizzards of slime which swirl round anyone who tries to mention facts which upset the leftist consensus here. I don't mind people being partisan, how else could they ever be engaged ? But it's the assumption by some on the left that they *own* certain entries that annoys me. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jprw, the regulars at the AGW articles can often be extremely ascerbic with their comments. Some, in fact, have classified their manner as bullying and baiting.  Please take care not to respond angrily to their barbs, but don't be afraid to press them to come up with some valid reasoning to support their objections, as I did over the Booker book.  I would suggest using Booker's book to add some information to the Hockey stick controversy article and see how it goes.  I think I'm going to buy that book myself. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got a question for you here. Thanks Lucy Skywalker (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Please visit here. Cheers Lucy Skywalker (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Please stop edit warring. That page is under probation. Get agreement for controversial changes first; avoid revenge tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording
I agree that I should have phrased my analysis of Booker's scholarly reputation more palatably. I'll be more careful. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 10:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been edit warring at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a page covered by General sanctions/Climate change probation. Please seek consensus for all controversial changes at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I deactivated the unblock template to take you out of Category:Requests for unblock. Feel free to do whatever you want to this section. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jprw, once you are unblocked I suggest trying to add information to the article using Booker's book as a source instead of just inserting a mention of the book in the article. My copy of the book should be in my hands in another week or so and I'll see if I can participate in the discussion about doing that. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons policy
Thanks for your clarification on the application of this policy in the discussion on including Booker's work as a source in the IPCC article. It's much appreciated. --TS 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For helping me with this

Lord Monckton
look in the talk page lol :-) It was not doctored mate, i got that image after the last one was edit warred in (it was the one were he was ambushed at cop15 i think) Plus i think it is quite a natural image of him mark nutley (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks
Thank you for the barnstar. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Verify credibility" tags at Watts Up With That
You're aware that Booker's work was rejected following discussion at talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which we both participated. Now you're removing "Verify credibility" tags from this article which cites the same book by the same author, attached to statements of fact about the role of the blog in climate science. You must at the very least recognise that there is a long-running and good faith dispute on this. Please restore the tags until we've discussed this book's credibility with respect to the particular statements made. --TS 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rage Against God
Please see discussion page for the entry on this book. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, Jprw. Excellent work, in fact. =) -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 04:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

!RR
Having removed a longstanding positioning in the lead of "climategate", you effectively reverted to your same formulation here and here, ignoring discussion on the article talk page. Please self-revert your second change to comply with 1RR, and put the argument for your preferences on the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC) revd. . 20:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Good article nominee
Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I'm currently reading the book, and have found to be a very good read, I'm not sure if I could be ojective enough to give it an official GA review, but I will try to join Viriditas in providing constructive criticism. I notice that you asked Kim D. Petersen to review it.  Kim is a very good and experienced editor who I believe would do a good job as the GA reviewer for this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the Norminator of the article and I would suggest that you are misusing the WP:GAN system by chosing your own reviewer, that is not how the GAN system is intended to work. See thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Pyrotec (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I've failed the article. Can I suggest that you consider my comments Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA1. I would suggest that this article has the makings of a GA, but this is not the way to acheive it: the GAN process is intended to be fair and impartial. If it is resubmitted to WP:GAN before the end of April it should be reviewed quite quickly. Pyrotec (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in getting the article up to a GA, I might recommend User:Tony1's writing tutorials. While they're aimed at getting articles up to FA standard, the principle is really the same. If you aim in the general direction of an FA and fall a little short, you'll probably still have a GA. Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (To JPRW) Don't worry that the article didn't make it this time.  Just work on the good faith suggestions you received, and I think most of them were made in good faith, and try again. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Cardigan
The best way (if you want to truly make your photo free for all) is to upload it to Wikimedia Commons there it will be available to all the other language wikipedias too. Once you have created an account you can use the link to Upload File, and choose the top option 'It is entirely my own work'. Try to follow the standard set by someone else of a common picture, but I'd be happy to give it the once over when you have uploaded. Try to give your file a specific title, "Cardigan from South Street Spring 2008". Drop me a line if you need more help. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you uploaded the image. If there's a message on it I may be able to fix it or point you in the right direction. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the name of the file? And is it on Wikipedia or WikiMedia Commons? FruitMonkey (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At the bottom of the page, under the Wiki buttons there is the licensing drop down box. Which license did you choose, I normally go for the 'Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (recommended)'. Original source should just be Own work and author should be your username in double square brackets. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks for bearing with me. The photo can be found. I suppose the next step would be to decide if we can use it in the article, i.e., is it good enough. Cheers and pob lwc. Jprw (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I think its a good photo. The article could do with expanding to help a photo sit better, but we have no photo on Cardigan Castle and although there is a very interesting shot on the River Teifi article, it doesn't relate to the river's setting like yours does. I would suggest adding it to those articles straight away. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Jprw, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Jprw/Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Spoilt Rotten Dalrymple cover 10.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Spoilt Rotten Dalrymple cover 10.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, non-free content can't be used outside of the article space. If the image ends up deleted before the article is ready to be moved, it can be restored by an administrator, or just reuploaded. J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Passed
Congrats. Good job. If you want, you can also review one of the other current nominees. In any event, very good work. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Real Global Warming Disaster has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

Congratulations
On Spoilt Rotten, very interesting.

I should have better things to do, but a blank user page usually has me delving into its history... Rothorpe (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jprw, you may want to look at this page, with an interest in addressing concerns that neutral, uninvolved editors are bringing up. I would invite your attention specifically to the comments of Zscout370 and Geometry guy especially, as both offer concrete examples of how to improve the article and retain GA status. Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input so far. I believe the reassessment would benefit from further contributions regarding specific issues and concerns raised. Thank you again, Geometry guy 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Hitchens_Grand_Rapids.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Hitchens_Grand_Rapids.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Hitchens_Grand_Rapids1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Hitchens_Grand_Rapids1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hitchens Grand Rapids1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hitchens Grand Rapids1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This also applies to the other image you uploaded. Thanks.Andrew c [talk] 14:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rage Against God Cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Rage Against God Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rage Against God Cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Rage Against God Cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Just letting you know that you appear to have violated 3RR on Roger Scruton in case you hadn't noticed. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Roger Scruton. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you request an unblock and then delete my explanatory note. I won't reinstate it, but the reviewing admin is asked to check the history of this talk page. Courcelles 05:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was utterly irrelevant to the original block which I had yet to appeal. Jprw (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hitchens Grand Rapids.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hitchens Grand Rapids.jpg, which you've sourced to MAIL ON SUNDAY PICTURE DESK. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hitchens Grand Rapids1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hitchens Grand Rapids1.jpg, which you've sourced to MAIL ON SUNDAY PICTURE DESK. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Peter Hitchens In Iraq .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Peter Hitchens In Iraq .jpg, which you've sourced to MAIL ON SUNDAY PICTURE DESK. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on No Pressure (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NW ( Talk ) 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)