User talk:MasterVerbosity

August 2007
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Evelyn Mary Dunbar. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. ''Edit: Okay, I can see you are now making constructive changes to the page, thanks a lot! I apologize for the rather harsh warning if you were just testing, the sandbox is good for making test edits like that. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks again for helping out!'' Tucker001 (talk | contribs) 07:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:'Fostered Boy'.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:'Fostered Boy'.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:'Fostered Boy'.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:'Fostered Boy'.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatch Park and Evelyn Dunbar
I have removed material from both of these articles which was a straight-forward and blatant copyright violation. It seems from the editing history of both that you may have been responsible for inserting this material. If so, please remember that the direct addition of copyrighted material into Wikipedia articles is forbidden, and that continuing to do so could be grounds for being indefinitely blocked. If I am mistaken in tracing this material to you, my apologies. In addition, I have cleaned up the Evelyn Dunbar article considerably, removing not only the copyvio material, but much stuff that was irrelevant to the subject concerning "The Caldecott Community" and other topics. Please do not re-insert this material as it is not germane to the subject. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FITZGERALD: I appreciate "Help" to clean up my article about my foster mother Evelyn Dunbar the WW2 artist since no one else had noticed her stature within British art to bother to put her into Wikipedia. On the other hand I regard you as an ignoramus who has wallowed into 'my patch' and ignorantly mashed up with insults quite a bit of relevance. Please cite the blatant copyright you accuse me of immediately to my face! I, along with another boy in local authority County Council care were taken under Evelyn Dunbar's wing as her foster sons. Surely, I know more than you (you arrogant editorial upstart!) what is pertinent to Evelyn Dunbar my foster mother's Wiki account who's home I could see across a Wealden valley from my Mersham Hatch Children's Home which my foster mother visited frequently for a time. I have a mind to delete my initiated article totally. Let some other ignorant buff write it instead! How dare you insult my foster mother and her foster sons with your rabid self-importance! Signed: robertclarkmail@msn.com


 * I have insulted no one, I've simply made an article better and more comforming to Wikipedia standards. If, in the process, I've mucked up some facts, please tell me which ones, and I'll be glad to fix them.  On the other hand, you clearly have a serious conflict of interest problem with this article, and should not be editing it -- please see WP:COI for the rules on editing with a conflict.  (Basically, if you want changes made, you should run them by another editor first.) Because this is clearly an emotional issue for you, I'm not going to press the issue of your calling me an "ignoramus", but you should take a look at the rules on no personal attacks and adjust your rhetoric accordingly.  As for the copyright violation, material was lifted directly from this website and inserted in both articles I mentioned above.  Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert this maaterial as is.  You can use the facts embedded in the material, and rewrite using your own words, but you cannot simply cut and paste from a copyrighted source into Wikipedia.  You might also like to know that in contributing material to Wikipedia, you did so under a license, and it is no longer "yours" to delete at will.  You can, if you like, nominate the article for deletion, and the consensus of opinion will decide what to do with it, but you cannot take back what you've written, nor can you blank the page. I'll be glad to help you in any way you like, but please leave the insults on the nightstand in your next communication. Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:01, 31, May 2009 (UTC)


 * The poetic words you say I "lifted" were mine composed to another invited insert. Anyway...Please delete my Wikipedia article on Evelyn Dunbar. I will be interested to see who will insert another in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterVerbosity (talk • contribs)


 * That may be, but once published elsewhere, they are copyrighted and cannot be used again without permission of the copyright owner. Is that you?   If so, you would need to make it clear to the Wikipedia foundation that you own the copyright, and that you are releasing the material to be used here. But, in any case, I'm afraid the material was inappropriate in tone and content for an encyclopedia entry, which requires a transparent and straightforward prose style, not poeticism. As for your request to delete the article, I'm afraid I cannot help you with that, as I am not an administrator of Wikipedia, merely another editor.  You should look at WP:PROD for the procedure on how to delete an article.  In the meantime, given that we've gotten off to a rather strained start, I'd like to back off from engaging with your further, so I will bring this issue to the attention of adminstrators, and ask that one of them look at my edits, and this conversation.  Perhaps you will find it more conducive discussing your demands with them. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've posted a request for a neutral party to look over my edits, and this conversation, and intervene if necessary. You can find my request here.  I'm going to remove your talk page and the two articles in question from my watch list, so I won't be tempted to go any further than I have. My best to you, and my sincere assurances that no insult was meant in any of my actions. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Donating copyrighted materials
Hi. I understand that you may with good reason feel offended at being accused of copyright infringement, but I hope on reflection you will understand that Wikipedia's approach to copyrighted material is engineered to protect copyright holders: in this case, you. Wikipedia's content is widely mirrored—that is, external sites copy and spread our text almost instantaneously. It can be modified; it can be sold. If we allow this text to remain on our site without verifying that it should be here, we can very quickly inadvertently injure copyright holders. For this reason, we block publication of problematic material as soon as it is discovered, either by taking it from the article as Ed Fitzgerald did or by placing a "copyright problem" template over the article that blocks the entire content. Again, this process was not created to insult or offend you, but to protect you as well as protecting Wikipedia from being used to violate United States copyright law.

Since we have no means of verifying identity on account creation, we require external verification of identity before we can accept donations of copyrighted material. The easiest way to donate material is to place a release on the original site noting that the text and/or images are available under an acceptable license. For text, we require co-licensing under the terms of GFDL v. 1.2 or later and under the terms of CC-BY-SA, both of which allow modification and re-use, even commercially. The licensing permission must be explicit. It is not enough to say that you grant permission for the material to be used on Wikipedia. Our licenses allow material to reused, non-commercially or otherwise, and changed. If you would prefer not to display the notice on the original site, you can also send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, if you have an e-mail address that clearly associates you with the original site. Directions for doing so are to be found at Donating copyrighted materials. Please be sure that your e-mail identifies the articles under concern as well as the external site.

Alternatively, you have the option of rewriting the material. If you would prefer that the content be removed altogether, you can tag the articles db-g7. (Brackets and all) if you are the only real contributor to these articles (small changes by others don't count). A different administrator than I will review them to see if they should be removed as a courtesy to you. Removal is not guaranteed. At the bottom of every edit window, there is an irrevocable release to which you tacitly consent when you hit "save page". Most of the time, administrators honor these requests, but there are occasions when they may not. If an administrator does not delete the articles at your request, you would then need to pursue a deletion debate, which generally would require demonstrating that the article does not meet our policies and guidelines.

Again, I understand that you may have felt offended. However, Wikipedia requests that even if others are mistaken about your actions, you assume that the other editor is working with the best interests of the project in mind and respond accordingly (See Assume good faith; Civility). Such restraint is necessary to keep the project working smoothly towards our common goal, the free dissemination of information.

If you have questions about any of this, please let me know. I will be watching your talk page and will be happy to clarify any points that I have not properly explained. As a member of Wikipedia's communication committee, I am also available to help guide you through the e-mail process if you choose to grant permission in that fashion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It was the brash, patronising manner of ‘editing’ which ‘got my goat’ operated without any recourse to the sensitivity of public relations. All I saw was an arrogant digital red pen wielded like a scythe dripping with red criss-crossing-out ink. (Is the ‘editor’ I have come-a-cropper with American by any chance?) I thought Wikipedia was a ‘people’s online encyclodictionary’; almost a charity; since it requests ‘donations’. Instead, as a common or garden contributor, albeit, I admit, amateur, I have endeavoured to navigate a convoluted digital system in order to add my lot ‘for the sake of the people’ for what it’s worth.

There’s a heck of a load of anecdotal knowledge out there in cyberland that can be got out ‘the mouths of babes’ which Wikipedia needs to facilitate into its pages. You won’t get it if you arrogantly continue your red-pen slashings to perfectly innocent entries. “Yes” the likes of me require ‘guidance’ not received as I perceived ‘insults’ from an indifferent digital Wiki know-it-all staff member.

Perhaps, Wikipedia might consider sending Wiki-staff on training courses, if you don’t already, so as to prepare them for the subtleties that may need to be administered when encountering the enthusiastic eccentricities of Wikipedia entrants such as me?

As a contributor to Wikipedia I wanted to have a sense of some ‘ownership of my article’ even if realising that it should essentially inform to a wider readership in, may be, more simplistic style of its subject that, ultimately, must be signed over as ‘not belonging to me’. Otherwise, what do you have in Wikipedia…a sterile, barren hotchpotch of material that one sees mirrored in any other non-digital encyclopaedia…Encyclopaedia Britannica for example or the American equivalent whatever that might be?

Do what you will with my article. All I can say is I’m glad my foster mother has a place in your not all together to be trusted online encyclopaedia. But, of course, no encyclopaedia or dictionary ever compiled should be regarded as supplying the definitive description or answer. At least I’ve made an effort I agree, wrenched out of personal involvement and emotion, to put a notable 20th century figure into your pages. I’ve no idea who might have done so otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterVerbosity (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We do appreciate your contribution. I can understand that seeing material removed that you had the right to place here would have been distressing. Given the seriousness of legal concerns, we do take a "remove first, ask questions later" approach to finding material that has been previously published on other websites where there is no indication that those websites are licensed in a way that they can be used (some websites display licensing notices that make permission clear in advance). While I can certainly see why you might have felt offended—since you did not realize that Wikipedia requires verification of authorization whenever previously published material is placed here, per our copyright policy—I hope that as a copyright holder you might consider that User:Ed Fitzgerald's actions with respect to the previously published material were intended to protect those rights. Wikipedia takes copyright matters very seriously, and asks all contributors to keep an eye out for and help address copyright infringement. Unfortunately, this diligence is necessary, because most of the material placed here from previously published sources is placed without permission.


 * As far as other matters are concerned (that is stylistic differences), the Wikipedia community decides such things through a consensus of editors, almost all of which are—like you—volunteers. (We have no staff training; we barely have staff.) I have not read either article and don't know the substance of what was removed or replaced, but when you run into disputes with other editors about content, we ask that you follow the dispute resolution process in trying to come to agreement. (That process explains how to involve other editors, if two reach a stalemate.) Every editor is welcome to play a part in shaping community consensus, not only on individual articles, but on the policies and guidelines that govern them. There can be a learning curve, and I know from my own early experiences that Wikipedia can seem very unwelcoming to newcomers. One of the reasons that we have created guidelines like Assume good faith is that personality styles and cultural backgrounds can differ tremendously between editors, which sometimes can lead to misunderstandings and hard feelings. When I am offended or hurt by somebody else's approach (which still happens, even though I am an administrator), I try to step back, look past how they're saying to what they're saying, and stick to a neutral, fact-based discussion of issues. Granted, it's much more pleasant when I run into somebody who thinks and relates like I do. But in a community as diverse as this one, it simply doesn't always happen. This is a ubiquitous problem for Wikipedia, to the point that many editors have written "essays" offering advice on how to do it: Staying cool when the editing gets hot, User:Ben/Assume the presence of a belly-button, No angry mastodons. If you take a look at the bottom of the first of these, you'll get an idea of just how many essays there are on avoiding angering/getting angry with other editors. (Which, honestly, I myself did not know until just now.) It is one of the major problems we face in keeping things running smoothly.


 * I do not believe I've worked extensively with User:Ed Fitzgerald, but I know I've encountered him in the past. I sincerely doubt it was his intention to give offense. My uninvolved eyes pick up on a number of "pleases" and even the apology if he has mistakenly attributed it to you, which suggests to me that on the contrary he intended to be straightforward and polite. I can understand why you might have perceived it differently. But I work a lot with copyright issues on Wikipedia, and I have seen notes to contributors believed to have violated that policy that are shocking in their presumption of guilt. One I read began with the words "Shame on you." (The contributor who received that note, I'm sorry to say, left the project. I hope you will not.)


 * With respect to the article on your foster mother, I'm glad that when you saw an opportunity to fill a gap in the encyclopedia's coverage, you decided to take it. You've put a lot of work into it, obviously, and I can see not only from this note but from others on the talk page that you've run into some frustrations while doing so. There are some additional challenges that may come from your closeness to her, but unless you are far more inclined to read up on the "rules" than I was when I arrived, I would imagine that you had no idea there even was a conflict of interest guideline. It also seems that as long as you've been here, nobody ever got around to giving you the "welcome" notice which contains links to so many useful policies & guidelines, which means you've had to figure them out yourself. I hope you won't object to its belatedness, but I'm going to take the opportunity to remedy that. I also hope you don't mind my running on long. I, too, am a master of verbosity. I can hardly help it. :) Just as there are some editors whose approach I find brusque and unfriendly, I know there are many made impatient by my own long-windedness. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Year links
Hello MasterVerbosity, thanks for working on the Robert Adam article. However, there is a long-standing editing guideline (part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style) that states years and dates should not be linked, as it adds little value. Its a form of overlinking - see Linking for the guideline. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2013
Thank you for your contributions&#32;to Margaret Thatcher, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

August 2016
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Peckham. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Charles (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Charles, Thank you for your prompt, arrogant, bad-mannered denunciation of my well-intentioned input on one of Wikipedia's Peckham pages. As a long time resident of Peckham and a regular user of Wikipedia I was interested to note what Wikipedia had for Peckham. My input was genuinely felt as could be useful for those wanting further to acquaint themselves with other relevant links I feel were pertinent to anyone needing to 'delve deeper into Peckham'. None of the links I added were in my view 'advertising'. The Peckham Society link is, against your pompous view, wholly relevant. You deleted without a second thought all 'my worthless contributions'. I am an avid supporter of Wikipedia and have donated to it through the years. Except, when I have endeavoured to add my bid I have frequently been rebuffed with the kind of pomposity and arrogant returns from the likes of 'your kind' who appear to 'own' Wikipedia above the rest of us. Do you know I have decided I have had enough and will shortly delete myself off Wikipedia in the capacity as an ordinary user that I have. Of course with my reply here you might as one of Wikipedia's intelligentsia delete me first. Either way I feel inclined never to donate to Wikipedia again. Yours sincerely, Robert


 * Welcome back? You added a Google Images search for the word "Peckham" to the Peckham article yesterday, which I've just removed as redundant under the external links guidelines posted above. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)