User talk:Londonlinks

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear : Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

Spam
Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.

Gurdjieff
I wonder why it is that you removed all the stuff under Gurdjieff under "critics".

Not that I disagree with the removal, I think most of it was utter rubbish, I just had thought that what was up there then was better than any nonsense that might go up there in the future.

Thoughts?

TheGunslinger

License tagging for Image:Silver Candlesticks.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Silver Candlesticks.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

=

Copyright problems with Image:Silver-candlesticks.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Silver-candlesticks.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Secretlondon 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of No picture in Windows Media Player
A tag has been placed on No picture in Windows Media Player, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Nk.sheridan    Talk  00:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest and copyright policies
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Also, you should read WP:COPYVIO, as it explains Wikipedia's guidelines about copyrighted text, such as that from http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0007/79540/UKPGE-nominations-factsheet-FINAL.pdf which is copyright per http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/copyright and was substantially copied into Independent candidate. Thank you. --Closeapple (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Independent candidate
I have read the talk page. I asked two questions there shortly before my revert to a redirect; 1) what's the difference? and 2) why does this not fall under Wikipedia is not for howtos?. Can you please answer them instead of asserting that I haven't read your statement that they are different? 128.232.241.211 (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Levi Bellfield
I believe your restoring the link on Levi Bellfield was ill-advised, as this isn't a reliable source or an appropriate link for an article that discusses a living person. I've explained further at Talk:Levi Bellfield and I've sought third-party opinions at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If you feel the link is appropriate (which you surely must, as you chose to add it back) please contribute to the discussions there. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

external link Bellfield
Hi, I see you replaced the disputed external link again. Please don't do that again and take this report as a WP:EDITWARRING notice. If you replace it one more time without discussion and consensus I will request your editing privileges are restricted.Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I am merely exercising my editorial discretion. Only you have disputed the link - nobody else. You want other editors to discuss your amendments after you have made them but you do not want other editors to discuss your amendments before you decide to make them. Londonlinks (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

dated comments
Hi, why is there no time and date in your talkpage comments? Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as you have edited and not replied I am unsure why or what you are considering to resolve this - please read this Signatures - do you know why your signiture is not adding a time and datte stamp? Is this something you are doing deliberately? Can you please correct this issue, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are using Signatures that is fine on your userpage but please start using Signatures on article talkpages as this will also post the time and date on the post, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

EL noticeboard
Hi, I have requested opinions at the External links noticeboard, External_links/Noticeboard - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Michael Stone (murderer). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''The edit sumarry here contained unsupported accusations of vandalism. Please see WP:Vandalism for Wikipedia's definition of vandalism.''  Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  23:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Michael Stone (murderer). Thank you. Quasi human  &#124;  Talk  20:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Omar benguit


The article Omar benguit has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one reliable source in the article - actually two - one of them points to the court of Appeal judgement. Londonlinks (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Omar benguit. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Omar benguit, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The inline reference has now been added to the article. As I am not a paid editor I do not have the time to edit the article to the requisite standard demanded by Wikipedia. If anyone else has the time to amend the page then feel free to do so. Londonlinks (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

maintenance templates
Hi please do not remove such maintenance template, this issue will be investigated, feel free to join in the discussion but please do not remove the template, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are cut and copying from what appears to be a website you are involved in some way with. The website its self is not even a WP:rs - that is before we start with the cut and copy issue - If this murder is notable you need top assert that by adding content supported by independent reliable external links, Th emurderer themselves is not notable and you added address all all sorts of other policy violating content - I suggest if you want to create an artixcle there are places to work here with experianced users that will help you do that. Right now I don't know the links, ask at the help desk WP:Help desk - or I know USER:Chzz - is experienced in such help - I suggest you blank this article amd we will delete it and you ask for help to create something with help and start from scratch. Perhaps WP:Article Incubator or WP:Article creation - you may also benefit from the type new user assistance that WP:ADOPTION gives.  Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree to blanking and deletion of the article? If you do I will sort that out. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - no I do not agree to you blanking and deleting the article which I would regard as act of vandalism. At the moment you are only listening to your own views, but there are other editors on Wikipedia apart from yourself. You should canvass their views and if you find a consensus to delete the page then I will have no objection if valid grounds for doing so are made out. Alternatively suggestions could be made as to how the page can be improved and other editors apart from myself could take on that role to improve the layout or content of the article.

Wikipedia did not develop as it has done through editors simply reaching for the delete button every time they spot something considered to be unacceptable.

So first canvas some support for your proposal to see if anyone apart from yourself agrees with your suggestion.

If you are in a minority of 1 then you will know your proposal has no substance.

Wikipedia editors are not barred from making contributions to articles which they have already published elsewhere - please read up on the policies and rules. 86.129.186.93 Londonlinks (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to help you understand what WP:Vandalism is but you insist on attacking me yet again - yawn - I tried to help you and directed you to locations here where you can find help .....but you seem unwilling or uninterested in accepting it .....Its up to you. I don't need to canvass anyone - enjoy yourself, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for suggesting that a complete deletion of the article would amount to vandalism, but it is the most severe step to take. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to draw upon the skills of a variety of editors who may each have a useful contribution to make to an article.

You are free to delete whole chunks of the article or make improvements, as you would then be performing your role as an editor, but if you simply delete the whole article, this would deprive others of the opportunity to edit the article and with respect would not really be 'editing' in the proper sense of the word.

If the whole article is deleted it would mean there is nothing left for anyone to edit.

You say that Omar Benguit is not 'notable' for the purpose of inclusion in Wikipedia, but I do not know what yardstick you are using for that assumption.

Deleting a whole article without consulting any other editor is really not editing. I have initiated a number of articles on Wikipedia which have been there for quite a long time and other editors are always free to improve them. If you do not have any contribution to make to the Omar Benguit article, you should bear in mind that some other editor may have something useful to say on the subject, and may set aside time to do so as I have set aside my time to begin the article.

Do respect the efforts which other editors make and if there any violations then any editor including yourself is free to make edits as they see fit. I have no objection to anyone editing the article, but deleting the whole article is simply not editing. Londonlinks (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Under the name of the person - he is a WP:BLP1e only notable for one event - the murder, so any article would need to be called after the murder not the man - then you need to assert that the murder itself was a notable murder or a notable event. For example that the case set a historic precedent or something along that line - perhaps assert that it was a high profile case and was widely reported in some national newspapers as well as local.WP:CRIME or WP:Event are related to such an articles notability status here on wikipedia - you would also need half a dozen reliable independent reports of the murder to use to support the content. If you have any of this it will be a good starting point. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - it is not possible to edit the article if it is deleted. If you wish to link to the article from another page such as the name of the victim then you still need to have an article page to link to. If you want myself or other editors to improve the page with other links then this can also be done, but nothing can be edited or improved if the page is marked for deletion or if it has already been removed. That is plain commonsense.

I will leave it up to you - delete the page completely if that is what you regard as "editing" but then don't expect the article to be improved in the way you are suggesting, because other editors are not telepathic and will not be able to read what is in your mind.

As I have mentioned to you before, simply deleting articles without canvassing the views of other editors before doing so is defined as vandalism, for which there is no excuse. If an article needs to be improved then it can only be improved if it is visible to other Wikipedia editors. Londonlinks (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Omar benguit for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Omar benguit 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/Omar benguit 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 good 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. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this recent edit to Omar benguit, you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Katieh5584 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to George Gurdjieff. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on talk pages or project pages such as the Teahouse. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I spotted the error just in time! Londonlinks (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on George Gurdjieff
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page George Gurdjieff, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Londonlinks&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1178090586 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Gurdjieff&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1178090586%7CGeorge%20Gurdjieff%5D%5D Ask for help])

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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)