User talk:JustinSmith

Hi! Sorry for the delayed reply, I was very busy yesterday and really only had chance to scan my watchlist at wikipedia.

FIrst let me say that wikipedia is a collaborative project&mdash;thousands of people are changing other people's edits constantly; if there were a requirement to get permission from each editor individually before changing their edits nothing would ever get done. In fact, when you submit material to wikipedia you implicitly give permission for other people to edit it&mdash;in the editing window it states clearly "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Regarding the external links that I removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have content. If you bought an encyclopedia and it just referred you to other books I think that you would go and ask for your money back. This is one of the reasons why external links are discouraged by many editors (you can read the current community consensus on external links at WP:EL). So, whilst I agree with you that, for instance, adding a topographical map to the Geography of Sheffield article would be a great addition, I think that adding a link to a topographical map on another website adds little or nothing to the article. Similarly for the links that you placed in other articles&mdash;had you added useful content to the article I would be only too pleased, but adding links to articles on your own website looks like self-promotion. That may not be what you intended, but wikipedia gets many thousands of people who do think that they can use wikipedia to drive traffic to their own website. So I would encourage you to add content to wikipedia (bearing in mind that it may be edited by other people), but not in the form of external links. JeremyA 15:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: your mail
Hi! You sent me an email with a couple of questions:


 * 1) If I edit an article but forget to "sign in" is it possible to go back and put my name on the edit?
 * You cannot change the name on the edit. What many do is sign in and make a null edit with an edit summary that is something like "the last 5 edits were by me"


 * 1) How does one start a new page ?
 * For the long answer read Help:Starting a new page and Your first article. The short answer is to type the name of the article that you want to start in the search box on the left hand side of this page and click on the Go button. If an article with that title already exists you will be taken to it, if not you will be taken to a page with a red-link that says create this article—click on that link and start editing.

I hope this helps, feel free to ask for more help if you need it (I am likely to reply faster to messages on my talk page than by email as I use a dedicated email account for my wikipedia email and I often forget to check it). --JeremyA 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Page views
Hi! I thought that I had replied to your email about this, did you not get it? Anyway, unfortunately as far as I am aware Wikipedia has no way for you to see the number of people that visit a particular page. Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the internet—a google search for 'Ponds Forge' gives the wikipedia page as the second hit, so you can be sure that a good number of people will read your contributions. However, the only way to gauge page visits is by the number of edits a page gets (add it to your watchlist), but as only a very small percentage of people that read an article actually edit it this won't really tell you very much. —JeremyA 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Try this link for hits per article http://stats.grok.se/ this can also be used for images ***Adam*** 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your contribution to Transmitter
I'm afraid I find your edit rather baffling. I live about ten miles from a place named Waltham, but I've never heard of "Sandy" except as a woman's given name, and "digital MUXES 5 & 6" doesn't signify anything to me either. Please remember that Wikipedia is an international project, and an example which is obvious to you may mean nothing to most readers. 121a0012 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on naming - Crystal Palace transmitter or Crystal Palace transmitting station
A discussion has opened on the more appropriate naming of articles in Category:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom. The discussion has been moved to Category talk:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom. The essence of the discussion, is that:
 * a) the term Crystal Palace transmitter or Foo transmitter is used more commonly than Crystal Palace transmitting station or Foo transmitting station and so fits with the advice of Name.
 * b) the term Crystal Palace transmitting station or Foo transmitting station is more technically accurate as the term Transmitter has a specific use which does not and should not be applied to the station as a whole. As this is a technical term, the naming policy does not apply.

The relevant wording of the advice from the Naming conventions is:

'''Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

'''This is justified by the following principle:
 * 'The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists''.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Reliable sources use both transmitter and transmitting station.

Input to the discussion is sought.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richborough power station


The article Richborough power station has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:N, unreferenced, non operating power plant

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I have to agree with the above statement, but in the spirit of cooperation, I'll restore it. As I recall, the article lacked citations and therefore lacked notability as well. Good luck and thanks for asking. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kirkstall Power Station
FYI I've removed the OS reference and added a coord tag instead. Noting the prod, above, may I say that I welcome the creation of articles on old power stations - very good subject matter for wikipedia in my view. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See Adolf Galland
Justin, I believe the incident about a "..squadron of Spitfires" is already quite well known and I have made some revisions to your edits on the Battle of Britain (film) and the Galland article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

Warships Westerns etc.
Hi, re - please could you add a reference in the approved form, see WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITE. A source given in the edit summary won't appear when viewing the article. Similarly, could you please add references to the edits you've recently carried out at, and. Thanks. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Redrose. All the info is from the book "Westerns, Warships and Hymeks at work" by Geoff Endacott, I think this is probably the seminal work on the subject. I`m not sure how to put the references at the page bottom, I`ve never had time to learn how to do it. Actually, the capacity of the Maybach MD engines wasn`t from Endacott`s book that was easily found on the internet, all sites agreed on this, including Maybach`s original site (now M.T.U). MD engines have the same capacity per cylinder, i.e. 5.4L --JustinSmith (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as I mentioned above, there are documents called WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITE - these cover "referencing for beginners" and "citing sources" respectively, the latter being a bit more advanced. As a bare minumum, say you had added some fact
 * the engine developed 1100 bhp at 1530 rpm.
 * you would add the reference immediately after that, within a pair of  tags:
 * the engine developed 1100 bhp at 1530 rpm.
 * but it's best to provide a bit more information, such as publisher, year and ISBN; the most important is the page number:
 * You can also use the template to carry out the formatting for you:
 * Either way, it will display in the references section something like this:
 * 1. Endacott, Geoff (1988). Westerns Warships & Hymeks at Work. Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. xxx. ISBN 0-7110-1535-X.
 * but whichever you choose, please replace the "xxx" with the relevant page number. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Endacott, Geoff (1988). Westerns Warships & Hymeks at Work. Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. xxx. ISBN 0-7110-1535-X.
 * but whichever you choose, please replace the "xxx" with the relevant page number. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking, referencing etc.
Hi, re : this sort of link is discouraged for at least three reasons - it's an external link in the body of the article, see WP:ELPOINTS item 2; and it's not directly related to the Class 55s, see WP:ELNO item 13 - it's mainly the homepage of an organisation, which fails WP:ELNO item 19. If your intention was to use it as a reference source, that's also inadmissible because there is nothing on that page which supports the text which you added to British Rail Class 55.

Next: regarding - what is Locomotive Practice & Performance by Cecil J Allen p56? I am only aware of this as the long-running series in The Railway Magazine - in which case you also need to give the magazine title, year and month at the very least.

Please also see the section above regarding referencing, since these articles use the  system, not parenthetical referencing. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello RR. I think the link to the Railway Performance Society should be included for a few reasons. Readers can see what the society is about and whether they think its references and research are worthy. Furthermore, to be frank, the RPS generally at least wants some publicity for using "their" sources and data, which, to be frank, I think is fair enough, it`s not as if they`re a business in it to make money. If you want to move the link to the reference at the bottom of the page be my guest. I also have the RPS times for an A4 on modern infrastructure schedule for KX to Edinburgh, but I don`t think it right to use any more of their data without at least a link onto their website. I think this is a classic case where an inflexible attitude to Wikipedia`s "rules" is counter productive. As I say on my "User page, we shouldn`t lose sight of why we`re actually here.

On the Cecil J Allen book, it is actually a book which I have in my collection, the full title is "Locomotive practice & Performance in the 20th Century", first published by Heffer in 1949.

On the reference thing, my eyes just glaze over when I see that, my brain is already full.... Just as I sometimes edit others grammatical errors, I`m quite happy for others to edit my references if they want !

Incidentally, is there a spelling checker on the Wikipedia software because the one on my Google toolbar doesn`t seem to work on Wiki editing for some reason. --JustinSmith (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Linking to an organisation's website so that "readers can see what the society is about" is often judged to be linkspam.
 * Linking to the homepage of external sites purely for the purposes of attribution shouldn't be necessary. If that organisation has made information available on their website which is used to support an edit made to a Wikipedia article, the reference in that Wikipedia article should have a link directly to the page where such information is shown. For example, on Reston railway station, I took some information from a website run by the Dunse History Society. Instead of linking to the society's homepage, I linked directly to the page where that information appears; and I didn't do it in the body text, but in the references section near the bottom.
 * Regarding the spell checker - the answer is "no", and it comes up so often that it appears as the third item in the FAQ list at the top of the technical Village Pump. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

On the links thing, what can I say, other than I don`t agree with you. Personally if an organisation`s data is being quoted I see no problem with linking to it so "readers can see what the society is about", it certainly isn`t SPAM. Quite apart from anything else I`d have thought a fair percentage of people reading an article on Deltic Performance would be interested in seeing what the the RPS is about, or even just discovering that it exists. I`m certainly not getting into a argument over it, though I don`t think it right to use any more RPS info under the circumstances (you`ve usually got to be a member to access the RPS acrchive), which is a pity in some ways, the only people who`ll lose out are the most important ones, the readers.--JustinSmith (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just found the relevant guideline (when searching for something else). It's at WP:CITE, last paragraph (the one about Apple). -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To be frank RR some obscure Wikipedia guideline is of less importance to me than informing, and, just as importantly, generating interest from, ones readers !--JustinSmith (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Spitfire articles
Hi Justin - anything you can think of which can help improve aircraft articles are always useful, and I think your idea about service dates is a good one so, when I have more spare time I'll put together some tables. Cheers ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   21:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello MH. That would be helpful for people reading the arcticles. For those doing research it`d be useful for comparing performance (for instance a Spitfire Mk1 would never have fought a Bf 109G so it`s pointless comparing them, but only if you know that ! ) but it`d also be educational for those with just a passing interest. This is why I actually think all specifications on planes should be dated, very few people would bother to spend the time trawling back through the rest of the article(s) to check when a particular variant was in service so would just take the data given in the table as being the performance of a Spitfire or a Fw190 or what ever. Even if the dates are just approximate, just so long as this is stated I think it`s preferable to no date at all.--JustinSmith (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Calf Hall
Sorry to bother you out of nowhere. I may be having a Senior Moment here but does "Calf Hall" mean anything to you? Not trying to OUT anyone or anything here, just having some kind of flashback. It may also involve Lancasters. Ring bells? Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello DB. Sorry Calf Hall means nothing to me, though I have to say it`s made me curious as to what its relevance is.......--JustinSmith (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Operation Sea Lion : The Sandhurst Wargame


The article Operation Sea Lion : The Sandhurst Wargame has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced article; does not appear to be notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fiesta Nightclub (Sheffield)


The article Fiesta Nightclub (Sheffield) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable nightclub.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dog six (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Fiesta Nightclub (Sheffield) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fiesta Nightclub (Sheffield) 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/Fiesta Nightclub (Sheffield) 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. red dog six (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Fraggle81 (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

de Havilland Mosquito
Could you please add properly formatted citations and a bibliography entry for the material you've added to this article, instead of leaving it to other editors to chase around looking for the relevant sources? Galland First and Last: What year, edition, publisher? Bowman - year, title, page no etc. It would be appreciated, Thanks ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   09:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I will try to remember to include the publisher etc in future.

Incidentally I don`t agree with the Galland`s comments (in the Mosquito article) being made into a footnote, but I can`t be bothered to change it back again. As a general rule I don`t actually agree with the use of footnotes at all because hardly anyone reads them, particularly those who don`t regularly use Wikipedia.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Explained on Mosquito talk page. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   23:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your additions to Rolls-Royce Merlin
Please please please - this is a featured article so don't add unreferenced material to it and expect it not to be removed! You might state in your editing note "This is correct information" but, without adequate references, we only have your word for it. Thanks ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   09:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can check this, but as it happens  you do not only have my word for it.--JustinSmith (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are two problems with that as a source: firstly museum caption boards are not always accurate. They're short and simplified, so subtleties are frequently lost. Also they're sometimes just wrong!  Secondly, a random photo on a random website is often decried as having become "corrupted" in transit. Picky, perhaps, but there's a strong feeling hereabouts for a "chain of evidence" where content starts out reliable and is kept reliable all the way.
 * I feel that there are two interesting aspects worth adding here: manufacture being specialised, thus dependent on distant works on Sheffield. Also that the cranks were forged and then twisted, rather than forged in one operation. I'd be very interested to see just why they were made that way. These two points would need sourcing though, and I agree that a museum photo caption isn't enough for a FA  (although it's a common and dangerous mistake to see FA as "complete" or "perfect"). What else can we find?  Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andy. I`m not sure I agree with you on the museum board thing but the actual (flat forged) dies is surely sufficient evidence for anyone ! ? ! At the end of the day anyone can go and see them for themselves, any chance of the "Aircraft Cabal" organising a day trip to Kelham Island ? I`m sure they`d find it very interesting, I did !--JustinSmith (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to see a WP-problematic caption board, Bristol Museum has one describing the Coanda-1910 as the first jet aircraft! I make these caption boards. Some of them are so busy being short and snappy or "accessible" that they seriously compromise accuracy (thinking of another Bristol museum in particular).
 * The trouble with the die (do you have better close-ups of the die BTW, as it sounds fascinating) is that it requires interpretation to go from the shape of the die to "a manual twisting step was needed". WP rightly dislikes interpretation, as most editors aren't enough of subject experts to get that right. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andy. I`ll try to send you a higher res pic of the die when I get a chance.--JustinSmith (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Rolls-Royce Merlin. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''You might think other editors are somehow stupid or misguided for following the guidelines you so heartily dislike; what you are doing is assuming you know best while everyone else is wrong - its not a helpful attitude and one which I hope you'll change. In the meantime stop screwing around with a featured article and being so condescending towards other editors just because you don't like "the system". ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk   19:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a bit rich, coming from someone who has just accused Justin of "sabotage"! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Stop screwing around with a featured article" you say. Do you mean stop adding correct, interesting and relevant information ? I think I will have to think very carefully whether I bother adding any more correct, interesting and relevant information to any Aircraft page, particularly any page with any kind of award. The only people who will lose out are the poor forgotten readers, and who cares about them !

And yes, I do think that many self appointed super editors are more bothered about protocol and their rankings/awards than about the actual users of Wikipedia. Dealing with them is incredibly frustrating, it reminds me of dealing with inflexible pedantic civil servants (not that I think all civil servants are flexible and pedantic, I hasten to add ! ).--JustinSmith (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You keep accusing other editors of being "self-appointed super editors" only bothered with protocol and rankings awards? Who appointed you to be the Protocol-Buster, and what entitled you to treat other editors and their work with so much contempt? If you're so convinced that you're right why not put some more effort into finding solid sources instead of having a go at everyone else because you cannot find the relevant information? ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆ MTalk''   10:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I`m not a "Protocol Buster", self appointed or otherwise, I simply think that there should be some flexibility when something interesting and informative is obviously correct, such as a die proving that Merlin cranks were forged flat. Worrying about whether a page will lose its ranking if it includes relevant and correct information is, it seems to me, putting the cart before the horse and getting priorities all wrong. The vast majority of people who use Wikipedia have no idea what all the these page ranks mean, they aren`t interested, and neither am I really. I do tend to think that there are Wikipedians who are more bothered about page ranking than interesting content but I have never assumed bad faith, I just don`t agree with, or understand, those priorities. Hopefully, if I remember, this saga will never be repeated because I`m not going to bother adding anything to any page with any ranking particularly if it`s an Aircraft page. And that, is unfortunate, not for me, but for anyone who may have read the information I may have added.

I hope I have clarified my position.--JustinSmith (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

and then refer to it with. Referencing for beginners has more information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikimath
1978 NHRA Summernationals. 1971 NHRA Winternationals. NHRA Winternationals. NHRA Summernationals. Frank Manzo. That's just today. I have things I'd rather be doing than cleaning up formatting when you've made it impossible to tell who the author is, & I have no intention of chasing down the source you used (& presumably have access to) to fix a formatting error you made & refused to fix. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  21:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is you`re probably removing something you don`t agree with (as though facts can be disagreed with...) and used arcane editing rules as an excuse to do so. But even if that isn`t you`re motivation then as a Wikipedia editor why is your first choice action to delete rather than improve when you have said you know how to properly (in your view) enter a citation in an article and could therefore do it pretty quickly ? There are far too many Wikipedia editors of your mindset which is why I don`t contribute to Wikipedia much anymore and have stopped donating as well. It`s a pity because it`s the readers that are the ones who lose out.--JustinSmith (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello JustinSmith, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Battle of Britain have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your 'dowry' edit on OHMSS
Hi, I revoked your edit on 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film)'. A plot summary is 700 words or less and is a summary. You'd added a relatively long sentence on the dowry, a minor story point (excessive detail). In the film, the dowry appears twice and has no effect on the plot or actually on any other events seen in the film. I imagine it was put in because it appears in the book. It doesn't benefit the plot summary but does lengthen it disproportionately so I'd removed it. Summaries aren't intended as a step down from reading the script. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot. Thanks. ToaneeM (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

March 22
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also please read wp:brd, if you are reverted it is done to you to make a case at talk, and then get wp:consensus for your alteration. Making a case at talk does not give you carte blanche to edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not know how to do all this, but I do know that after 16 years, I am not accepting this biased editing.
 * I tell you what I'll make an alternative edit and we'll see how that goes. JustinSmith (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After 16 years you do not know about BRD, or OR, seriously? Right now you also may not know about wp:rightgreatwrongs either. Do not add that conr3ent in any way, if you do I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You do what you want., but look at yourself and ask why you are doing that. JustinSmith (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I find it extraordinary that after 16 years you think things like wp:or, wp:rs and wp:brd are "obscure rules". Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also you need to read wp:lede, it is a summary of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

''The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read.[2] It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.''

Exactly, that opener must tell the reader that Campbell is not against vaccination which plainly he cannot be if triple jabbed. I'm a reasonable fellow, you use any form of words you want that does that.JustinSmith (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Many antivaxers are vaccinated. Keeps them safe while they work their audience. Anyway, without sources this is irrelevant to Campbell. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No it must not (see wp:cherry and wikilawyer) as it says before your quoted text "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.". This is my last comment here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is JustinSmith. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Focus on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV
You're shooting yourself in the foot by making this about WP:Righting great wrongs. We don't care if an article "looks bad" to a certain point of view: we care that the claims are verifiable, the sources are reliable, and the claims are neutral in relation to the original content of the source. Screeching about how an article "makes somebody look bad" is just going to get you blocked for tendentious editing. We're here to write an encyclopedia. MarshallKe (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether the article "looks bad" is not the issue, it is the most biased page I have ever read on Wikipedia. It almost makes me embarrassed to be associated with Wikipedia, it's that bad.
 * It is not me that is guilty of tendentious editing, as any unbiased person would agree.
 * My "claims" are eminently verifiable, ideally by going to the original source (as any historian would ! ), but if some Wiki editors don't want to do that (for their own dubious reasons....) then other sources reporting on the original source are available. Why that is necessary is beyond me. JustinSmith (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, see, that's not an actionable complaint, and it's not a good look that you claim there are other sources but then don't provide them. Provide those other sources. If you think the article is WP:POV interpretation of the sources, then read the sources and suggest edits. MarshallKe (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm coming here after seeing your ARE discussion. I understand the concern associated with biased articles.  It's not uncommon to read a BLP and feel the person who wrote it was trying, within the limits of wikipedia, focus on the negative and cast things in a bad light.  I would suggest doing two things.  First, clean up the mess at ARE.  That means understand why people are concerned and if you broke any editing/sourcing rules walk back the changes/statements etc.  You don't want people to decide your methods are a bigger problem than any issues you find in the article.  Next, raise the concerns at BLPN.  Try to focus on a few key fixes.  Do understand that to some extent it may be hard to fix too much.  Wikipedia's knowledge sources are somewhat like "free market economics".  When the market is big and there are many providers competing we often get the most for the lowest price.  However, when the market is small and the cost of entry is high buyers are often stuck with limit choices.  The market for articles about various Youtube personalities is often small.  So you don't get a wide range of coverage and often coverage is limited to sources that are covering the person for a specific reason rather than are trying to summarize the person.  That can result in a biography that isn't broad in scope but instead focuses on only the controversial and only from one side of a controversy.  You certainly don't have many sources stepping back and asking, "was that criticism legitimate or logically sound?"  It sucks but it's just part of how Wikipedia works.  It would be nice to find a way to improve it without breaking the rest of the system.  Springee (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty good advice, there, Springee. Interesting analogy to markets - never heard that one before. And yeah, nothing we can do about any coverage bias that might be built into news companies, and it's not even within the scope of Wikipedia to attempt to do so. MarshallKe (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: your question in your edit summary
In your edit summary you ask "Why has this edit been undone?" - there is ongoing discussion about it on the article talk page. Please join the discussion rather than reverting. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE
I'm trying very hard to not sanction you at WP:AE, and normally, you would have been blocked on sight due to the edit warring, but I need to know if you can actually work with me here and take the advice given. Arb areas are a minefield, as you've discovered, and you need to get up to speed before adding material. You really need to stick to just using the talk page on COVID related pages for a few weeks, and learn the ropes editing on other pages that aren't COVID related. The community has given admin that work AE almost a blank check when working with problems like this, and the usual outcome is either a block, or a topic ban, which would prevent you from editing anything COVID related at all. I'm going out on a limb to try to NOT do this, but it does require your cooperation. I think you have a lot to offer the article, but man, you are really going about it the wrong way. My suggestion is for your own benefit, and it would be helpful if you accepted the terms, in the discussion, and actually followed them. It's ok to be a bit clueless as to all our rules, there are a lot of them and it takes time, but have enough clue to understand when you are being handed a lifeline, and wise enough to take it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * First,, I want to say I appreciate the effort you are making here. Not just in reaching out to an editor who is acting in good faith (if not the best practice) but also taking the time to investigate the article further.  JustinSmith, I saw your reply at ARE.   I don't think Dennis is saying let the others run amok.  However, he is saying you/editors in general need to follow the process.  Like you, I hate to see an article that is obviously slanted against the subject and reads more like its trying to convince the reader that the BLP subject is a bad person vs trying to actually describe the person and their views dispassionately.  Still, other editors may equally feel they are acting in good faith.  Imagine being wronged by the police or a company etc.  You take them to court.  Your case may be a sure win but if you don't respect the court's procedures and process it won't turn out well for you in the end.  I can't speak to all the people who oppose your edits but I know at least one is reasonable and will listen if you make a clear argument why the current article text is wrong/problematic.  If you need help articulating the problem you can always ask at BLPN.  I suspect Dennis would, time allowing, be willing to offer advice on how to approach issues, what policies/guidelines might apply - I assume Dennis would not get directly involved. Think of it this way, you have already started the process of getting things improved by getting a respected independent opinion to agree the article has issues. Remember, it's not the end of the world if it takes a month vs a day to implement a lot of the fixes.  If you get blocked the article might loose a critical editor who is motivated to get consensus to get improvements made.    Springee (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I would suggest reverting this edit . First, it's always a bad idea to suggest what another editor's motives are.  Yes, it's almost certain that some Wikipedia editors are biased mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes (answer = 42).  But we don't know which.  If you are wrong when you accuse people of acting in bad faith when you are breaking edit warring rules you are very likely to find even sympathetic editors will ask for a topic block.  Some, perhaps even all of the editors you are arguing with may not see the issues.  Others might but they say your edits aren't in line with policy.  - as an example, I've had editors both accuse me of being an anti-gun shill and a paid NRA editor.  Why?  Because sometimes I've reverted edits that were "pro-gun rights/owners/views" because they violated policies like WP:V, WP:NOR etc.  Take a breath.  If you explain the issues to me I will try to help over the next several days.  Don't accuse others of maybe bad behavior when they can point to your breaking of the rules (regardless of good intentions). Springee (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2022 (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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)