User talk:Peteb16/Archive 6

Manchester Airport removal of reference
I can't see anywhere in Wikipedias guidelines, a guideline saying not to use .doc references. Even if there is how is one from an official local government website worse than one from a book, which most people can't access? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheliaval (talk • contribs) 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving user warnings
Please leave user warnings on the users talk page, not the user page. Thanks. Brianga (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User page!
Ha ha! No problem at all!.... don't tell anybody, but I stole mine in two halves from two other editors, so it's not really mine to own anyway! I say go for it!... I hope all's well with you? I must thank you for your continued watching of Shaw and Crompton! I don't know what I'd do without another editor there!... I've really got into things at the moment, and still can't believe I got Oldham to FA! Might do Middleton next, or Rochdale. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tables in columns (Neighbours)
Hi there,

Thanks so much for your sandbox table, that's exactly what i had in mind. I don't know about you, but i think that would look so much better. I'll add it to my sandbox version and see whether anyone else likes it. Then I'll spend another week trying to get my head around the code! Ged UK (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be grateful if you could post up your thoughts on the article proposal, because i don't know about you but i'm getting pretty bored with the constant re-editing of the 'going' table! Ged UK (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Old talk page
Thanks for the nudge! I hadn't noticed! I've since tackled the issues raised. I'm actually very well at the moment, which makes a change for me (thanks for asking!). I have noted your comment at Talk:Shaw and Crompton and haven't forgotten to make the changes that were proposed... infact, I may do it this afternoon! --Jza84 | Talk  14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Max Branning
I agree the article definitely needs a lot more real world context, as with the excellent article on Pauline Fowler, but I don't necessarily think the tense of the storyline summary will need to change as it does. I think the Pauline article does a good job of differentiating between tenses for out of universe and in-universe information, while still being very much readable. For instance, looking at the Max article as it currently stands, were the information in the Reception section to be integrated alongside the plot summary, it would still be correct for it to read:
 * ...Tanya decides to kill him. She prepares a meal for Max, spiking his wine with crushed pills. When he collapses, she and Sean Slater take him in a van to some deserted woodland, where Sean has dug a hole and placed a coffin. They put Max in the coffin, and leave him to die. [...] This storyline prompted 167 viewer complaints, citing the inappropriate nature of the scenes, which aired prior to the 9.00 pm watershed. The BBC responded with the statement: "Whilst we appreciate that these episodes were dramatic..." 

I don't think it would be necessary to revert the plot summary to past tense for this to make sense - as I said, the Pauline article is structured similarly, by way of random example:
 * Christine makes greater demands on Arthur, threatening to tell Pauline about their affair unless he does so himself. In September 1993, the situation finally reaches a climax on-screen. The scriptwriters had many conferences about ways in which Pauline would find out about the affair; "should she work it out herself or should some third party tell her the truth?" 

Basically, it just seems to be a matter of past tense for real world perspective, and present for in-universe information. Alas, I seem to have been reverted again whilst writing this out, so it looks as though I might have to raise the issue on the EastEnders project page. Frickative (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neighbours
Thanx for cleaning up the information on five life changing to Fiver :-)

I only changed the 9am to 10am slot. Do you know why Neighbours is on at 7.30pm on Monday on Fiver? I find it weird to show two new episodes of Home and Away at 6.30pm. Onshore —Preceding comment was added at 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad I helped! The 7.30pm thing is weird I agree. It's even weirder that at the end of the 7pm showing on Five Life the announcer actually said that Neighbours would be back at the same time on Monday on Fiver, yet the schedule on both Radiotimes and Sky's EPG still say it'll be on at 7.30pm. I'm half expecting it to turn out to be a glitch which will suddenly disappear once the channel relaunches with no explanation. We'll see. Peteb16 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Royton
Hello there Peteb16! I hope all is well with you; our paths haven't crossed for some time now! Just thought I'd give you a nudge that I've been doing a complete rewrite of the Royton article, and I'm hoping to expand this upto GA standard over the next few weeks. It would be great to have you on board to catch anything I might have missed. It's still work-in-progress, but I'm sure you'll agree that it's looking much better! Hope you're ok, --Jza84 | Talk  00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jza84! Sorry it took me so long to respond. Not really done much here recently as I've been busy with other things. Congratulations on actually achieving GA standard for the Royton article, I definately think it's starting to resemble the standard of the Shaw and Crompton article. If I get some time I will of course contribute anything I can to get it to FA standard. Best wishes, hope you're well. Peteb16 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FredDibnahStory01.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:FredDibnahStory01.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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your AfD-Deletion of article about Scala, Inc.
Are you the Dungeon Keeper of Scala Inc.?? Mediatemple (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have my reasons for wanting to keep the article which are mostly centered around protecting Wikipedia from bad faith editing, which is what I believe is really happening here. Since you've just described Scala Inc as a 'dungeon', I now know for sure that you have personal reasons for wanting the article deleted and they have nothing to do with contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia. Peteb16 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What are your reasons to keep the article? I've called you Dugeon Keeper not because I have personal Interests in Scala. Inc. but you have deleted 2 independ AfD's. That's what I call Bad Faith!. I will inform some Admins about your strange behaviour, so that the proposal for deletion cannot deleted anymore. The article itself is only advertising, the company is not notable according to the Wikipedia Company guidelines. CU Mediatemple (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given my reasons for keeping the article on the Afd page for the article. I deleted the first template because this discussion did not exist and I disagreed, the conditions of the template allow any user to do this if they oppose deletion. The second template I deleted was an MFD template. MFDs are for 'problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace', as this article is inside the main article namespace, the template was not valid here. According to conditions of notability this company has to have many secondary sources in order to be notable. A quick google for the company name suggests that there are many of these, they just haven't been applied to the article yet. I will personally try and find time to do this and urge you to do the same rather than simply condeming the article. Peteb16 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

CiN2008
You up for it again this year? Do you know if there's there any way we can mark the page so others know we're on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedgeth (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Top of the Pops 2003.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Top of the Pops 2003.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. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI
Nev1 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII
Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII
Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:My Family.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:My Family.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Television program
Television program has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  16:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Danielle Nicholls 01.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Danielle Nicholls 01.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. Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Danielle Nicholls 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Danielle Nicholls 01.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi, Pete; could I ask that you take care not to mark edits such as this and this as minor? There's a handy list of when not to mark edits minor here. Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bad habit. Don't know I'm doing it half the time. Peteb16 (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for pointing this out, will try harder not to.  Peteb16 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:PeteManSanta.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PeteManSanta.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of FRIENDS as FA
I nominate friends as a featured article.Beacause you are one of the most contributors of the article, please help me in the nomination procedure.--nijil (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile
It's normal practice not to provide citations in the lead for uncontentious facts that are referenced in the main article - WP:LEADCITE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but my citation request was specific to the end part which I would describe as contentious. As it says in WP:LEADCITE, "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." I know Savile is dead but his accusers aren't. Peteb16 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You tagged the statement: "In October 2012, the Metropolitan Police began an assessment of the allegations." What's contentious about that?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was tagging the whole paragraph, but you're right the end bit isn't contentious. I should've specifically tagged "After his death, allegations were made that Savile had raped and sexually abused girls at the height of his fame in the 1960s and 1970s". Peteb16 (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's surely not contentious that those allegations have been made - again, fully referenced in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We're saying that there are allegations made that a man who was regarded as a hero for 40 odd years and made millions of pounds for charity was actually a child sex offender all along. Somehow the whole article seem very contentious all of a sudden. But I do believe that having a citation next to that particular part is a requirement of WP:LEADCITE, which also states "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations". Peteb16 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. We are saying that allegations have been made.  That is true and not in dispute.  We are not saying, anywhere, that they are either true or false.  They are allegations - no more, at present.  We are certainly not saying or suggesting that he "was actually a child sex offender all along."  He may have been, but we don't know that with a sufficient degree of certainty to say so.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went a bit too far with my analogy, I realise we're not literally saying that I was using how we've gone from good guy to bad guy in one sentence to illustrate how contentious a subject this is. You keep saying that the fact allegations have been made aren't contentious, controversial or disputed, but the allegations themselves are contentious, controversial and under dispute, so the fact that they have been made no matter how indisputable still needs to be cited in the lead section as per WP:LEADCITE. Peteb16 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. The fact is that allegations have been made.  That fact is not contentious, and does not need a reference.  The fact that the allegations themselves are contentious isn't relevant.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Crickley!
Hi Pete! I have replied to you here Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 12:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done for finding and editing the template. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 19:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I stumbled across it looking for relevant categories to add the article to, but then realised it was on the James Herbert article all along. Not sure why I missed it now. lol. Peteb16 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied by e-mail. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Secret of Crickley Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Crickley
Thanks for providing the reference to the Liverpool remark, much appreciated was just going to look for it myself! Operation Hawk Eye to commence as people will be editing all sorts of crap onto the page from now on! Cheers again JMRH6 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I was about to challenge it but I thought I'd best at least type it into Google. I was surprised to actually find it quite quickly. Not only that but it's been there since March! Peteb16 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!
  Gareth Griffith-Jones  – The Welsh  Buzzard  – is wishing you the season's greetings. Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus, or the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.


 * Thank you so much. Best wishes! Peteb16 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shaw and Crompton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollinwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)