User talk:Petesmiles

welcome to petesmiles' talk page,

go on then,

talk......

HAIL GARETH! For he is manly

you go gareth.....!

HAIL GARETH! For he has woodled the mighty orange tree!

Good edit
You seem like a thoughtful editor, and a peacemaker, glad to have you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your message, reply is on:- Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington. Richard Harvey 08:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 09:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk Protection
Hello CesarB - I've been following the whole Dot 6 troubles, hoping for the situation to calm down, so true, truth (and related articles) can come back online - as you're probably aware, the Rfar against Dot 6 has led to his banning of editing any pages bar his own talk page - do you think it might therefore be appropriate to unblock the truth talk page? - thank you! Petesmiles 11:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are late. I already unprotected them all (including Talk:Truth); however, as soon as I did it, he started editing them from ever-changing AOL IP addresses (and we cannot block the whole of AOL, obviously). I ended up having to not only protect all the five pages (True, Truth, Epistemology, Knowledge, and Talk:Truth), but also my own user page, Banno's user page, my own user talk page (which is, shall we say, exceptional; I have since unprotected it), and a couple of bogus pages (User talk talk:CesarB and Talk:User talk talk:CesarB). I believe I blocked his ever-changing IPs more than ten times just yesterday. --cesarb 11:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That IP block...
Glad to see you can edit again! Seems your IP has changed; 220.245.178.136 is still blocked until 14:29 (UTC) today. Sorry that this IP block affected you; the IP belongs to TPG Internet in Australia. Lupo 06:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * TPG owns the large block 220.244.0.0 - 220.245.255.255. We get vandalism from several IPs from that range, so it occasionally may happen that some uninvolved third party is blocked, too, when an IP is blocked. I don't know if there are any technical solutions like the one you pointed out are in the works; for the time being, I guess we'll just have to be careful not to block these IPs for too long. I have no idea what this particular IP is, it could be a proxy. Sorry for the inconvenience... Lupo 09:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wayne Shorter
Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
How kind of you to welcome me! Malindi man 17:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

London Olympics
Hi Petesmiles, I've just taken a stab at answering your question at Talk:London Olympics. It's been more than a month since you've asked, so I figured I'd let you know just in case you weren't watching that talk page all that closely anymore. Let me know if you have any more questions! &mdash; Jonel | Speak 02:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ticket to Ride
see: Isle of Wight This has appeared before. Unless a reliable source can be named, I suspect urban myth or just wishful thinking by those familiar of the said town. I have removed the quote:
 * Ticket to Ride, the Beatles classic, is a pun on 'Ticket to Ryde', the ferry port to the North of the Island.

Dainamo 12:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromised IP block
Unfortunately, the IP address you operate from is a compromised proxy recently used by a bot to disrupt Wikipedia. It is listed on several proxy lists, such as ProxyForest. Please contact your Internet service provider to request that it be secured; you may present the ProxyForest listing and the IP's last three edits in conjunction with Long term abuse/Squidward as evidence. I apologize for the inconvenience; hopefully, your ISP can confirm that it has been closed within a few days. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

MP Infobox
I tried out your Infobox on Geraint Davies and it seems to work for me, although I didn't fill all the fields. On the Oona King page there was an error in the date linking that may have caused the problem; I have left it there as is, but perhaps if you close that link, it will all work.

Plenty of MPs today have represented more than one seat and in the 19th century they kept swapping pocket boroughs. How did you envisage the infobox working for multiple seats? Mtiedemann 09:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Its great that its working! I can start (prob. next week) to bung the info in for various folk (i tend to just wander between linked MPs). In terms of the infobox working with multiple seats the answer is right now i'm not sure - got any ideas? - To my mind we should obviously present the information - so the template would need some extra fields - like no. constituencies served, and then constituency1 info, constituency2 info etc. i'm brand new to the template stuff and will likely continue to fiddle - i'm just pleased that its working and being used! - Petesmiles 09:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cats and lists
I think the best way to achieve what you desire is a list rather that a cat. Categories are not lists (although people often call them that): they are an organised index, ideally accessible from various category trees, so that Users can find them via a variety of routes.

The list already exists: although at the top it says 2005 election, if you note at the bottom it does include defections and by-election results:
 * MPs elected in the UK general election, 2005

You may want to also have a look at Categories, lists, and series boxes. --Mais oui! 12:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I Have This Dream
I voted for deletion when the article about this to-be-released-sometime-in-a-distant-and-unknowable-future charity single was put up for AfD back in April. Unfortunately, as you know, the result was "inconclusive". Do you think it would do any good for me to nominate it again? I realize it would be the third nomination, but the vote was 8-to-5 the 2nd time, and since it still has not been released these 4 months later, perhaps we have a better chance. Your thoughts? ---Charles 03:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles - I think the gist of the argument to keep was that it had been mentioned across a wide variety of media which are reputable / acceptable sources. Reading the article now, it does bang on a little about the fact the single is long delayed, and may never see the light of day - so I suppose most keep voters wouldn't actually change their mind. Bottom line is that I think its a silly article to have, but lots of people seem to think that because AP carried the story, it's notable.

As someone pointed out in the discussion, perhaps its more embarrasing for Jackson than for us that this article exists......? - Petesmiles 07:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

LonelyGirl15
Well Pete, we tried to save LG's page but it looks like it's going to be removed. Well hopefully we can work together on it in the future if she becomes more popular. BTW: Check out Notable YouTube Users. I'm working on it now and would love some help! --Bschott 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A merge (or mention) with a few lines is fine, but don't cut and paste the entire thing to another article. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk
Hello, would you be interested in giving your opinion on my proposed change to the article? If so, please go here to do so. Bagginator 11:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I really am going to weigh in, there. I've just been trying to gnome some other stuff, and there are always little campfires to stomp out before they get the whole woods ablaze.  Geogre 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oona.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Oona.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Rossrs 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Marriage
Heya! It's great that you've been bold and jumped into the thick of it, but I feel that the sentence as I had propsoed is the simplest and clearest definition. Adding husband and wife just doesn't seem to be necessary to me. I have said as much on the talkpage. Thanks for your message! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Polygamy
I'm concerned by your removal of mention of this from the marriage intro. Polygamous marriages are at least as statistically frequent as same sex marriage if we take an overview of cultures and histories. It seems right that they be mentioned for an overview of marriage to be given, and especially to avoid western bias. Other language Wikipedias include mentions of polygamnous marriage in their introductions and the French Wiki entry for one is much more detailed than the one you moved. There might be a different way to express it but I think NPOV requires polygamous marriage to mentioned from the outset. WJBscribe 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

help, please
listen, if you still believe that i am "right" about the POV war at Marriage, can you please help out there? it doesn't matter what we think if we do not stand up for it. for being "right", i sure feel lonely there in the debate. r b-j 08:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage intro
I just hopped over to say thanks for giving the different style a chance. I know we don't see quite eye to eye, but I also recognise that you are, like I am, aiming to improve the article, rather than push a POV; that's obvious from the thoughtful way that you write. My "agenda", if you like, is get people to see the common ground in an article, rather than focus on the conflict areas. So again, thanks for your consideration. Cheers.Trishm 03:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wiki Manners
Petesmiles, please direct personal attacks[] to my talk page. There is no reason to fill the marriage talk page with personal dribble. I am sorry I offended you by reverting your edits, but I felt they were very unprofessional so I reverted to what I considered a better worded and more professional edit. You do realize that when you quote Rbj in regards to proper wiki manners you are quoting an individual who regularly uses profanity and accuses people insane conspiracies--Riferimento 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Petesmiles, you embarrassed with your polite response. Please forgive my argumentative comments above. Take care.--Riferimento 12:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

QM2
Hello.I'm a Japanese Wikipedian who translated the article RMS Queen Mary 2 into jawp. Recently, I found your nice photograph(Image:Qm2 sydney.jpg) on RMS Queen Mary 2 and hope to use it on jawp.I feel sorry to bother you, but would you please uproad it to commons? Sincerely.--Sizuru 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

... sure! - i'll try and figure out how to..... (let me know if it works ok!) - cheers, Petesmiles 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - it's the at same filename..... Petesmiles 00:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! It works well.--Sizuru 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Guettarda 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Curtis Stone
Hi, sorry. I've had to delete Curtis' pic because it wasn't a free image. The only time you can use fair use images to illustrate a person is:
 * 1) if they're dead,
 * 2) if it's the cover a DVD, CD, book, etc.  --  Zanimum 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: a quick question about BLP (and Jimmy Gulzar!)
Hi Petesmiles -- As mentioned in the policy, (most editors feel that) a redirect is usually the best option. The idea seems to be to look at it from the general readership -- who is going to search for Jimmy Gulzar (in the Wikipedia search engine or e.g. Google)? Generally speaking, such readers will be interested in Mel B, aware of the past relationship, and looking for more info on Jimmy. When redirected (back) to Mel B straight away, they will get the message that's all we have on the subject. An additional reason to slightly prefer a redirect here: I guess Jimmy may not like being catapulted to the Mel B article, but he would like the results of his Wikipedia search even less when there is no Jimmy Gulzar article. Just click here and skip the first few hits. Bottom line, I think this is something to be be determined by consensus on the AfD page and have no clear preference either way. Does this help? Avb &divide; talk  13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Boral logo.gif}
Thank you for uploading Image:Boral logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Petesmiles! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jeff Duff -

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Attribution/It doesn't really matter


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies 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/Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)