User talk:Utinomen

AfD nomination of Springbok Club
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Springbok Club. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Springbok Club. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. RolandR 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, edit conflict caused a confusion here RolandR 18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Socialism. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RolandR 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, reverting reverts
I strongly suggest you follow the advise given in WP:BOLD. "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." You are making changes to a number of pages about the Interregnum and the Restoration. There is no harm in being bold. But once those changes have been reverted, you should seek consensus on the talk page before reverting reverts (see edit warring). If you continue to revert my reverts, either I will, or I will ask another administrator to, block your account until you agree to seek consensus on the articles' talk pages.

I do not pretend to think that the pages you are changing are perfect, but I do not think that your current changes are making the pages better. So please discuss the changes you wish to make and let us see if we can on a form of wording that we both agree is better. If we can not agree to the changes between ourselves on those talk pages then we can use the WP:dispute resolution process to ask for input from other editors. Initially, if necessary to start with we can use WP:THIRD, WP:RFC. --PBS (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are being disingenuous you are not removing text because it is not sourced, if it had been you would have mentioned that before now on the talk pages, besides if that was the reason WP:PROVEIT also says

":Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."


 * In these case you may not be aware that the text has been there a long time and the emphasis on sources was far less in the past. There is nothing in the text which expresses anything but the majority point of view and if there are any sentences for which you specifically thing that a source is needed then you can always use the undefined template. -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
If you create a new article like Restoration (Scotland), which in part involves copying text from another pages on Wikipedia, you must credit the copy in the history of the article or on the talk page of the article see Copying within Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Magna Carta
Please discuss the matter on the talk page before jumping in with a quick revert. I assume you have not yet read my talk page comments as your edit summary suggests you have misinterpreted my actions. Stating that Magna Carta dated to 1297 in the opening sentence is incredibly misleading and needs to be rectified as soon as possible. Road Wizard (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have rejoined discussion on talk page--Utinomen (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Convention Parliament (England)
I have reverted your move and changes to Convention Parliament (England) as it should have been clear to you on the talk page Talk:Convention Parliament (England)/Archive 1 that there is no consensus for the change. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The process used for discussing page moves is WP:RM -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If one has no reason to think that the move is contentious, there is nothing wrong with making a bold move. But if that move is reverted then to remake the move without using the WP:RM process is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will not agree to this mediation unless you rewrite the "Issues to be mediated" from a neutral point of view. I think (WP:WFE) my help. -- PBS (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The mediation process discussing the merits of different content options for the encyclopaedia. It is not for discussing the actions of the editors involved (It is not an alternative forum for a request for comment on a users actions). Either re-write the request in such a way that it presents the alternative options for the content of the article(s) in a non biased way, or I will not take part in this mediation. -- PBS (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have a stunning level of disengagement from the rest of the community over this issue. So I suggest that we agree on the talk page of the article some changes to the aticle. And see how far we can go before we need some sort of third party intervention/mediation? Please see the talk page for some suggestions. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Williamite War
Hi,

Can you cite the passage from the referenced book re Protestants' allegiance in the Williamite War? I really don't think that's right. While there was a very small minority of Anglicans who supported James, likewise Quakers, the vast majority were Williamites and in fact the Anglicans (or 'Protestants' as they were called at the time) were the big winners.

Best regards,

Jdorney (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, that's pretty standard stuff, there were some Protestant Jacobites, but not many. (The reference to the 5,000 English Protestants in James' Army seems to be tongue in cheek).


 * Moreover, there's no mention of either Presbyterians or Quakers in that piece. Indeed one of the most famous stories of the period is that William was welcomed into Carrickfergus by a Quaker who said "William, thou art welcome to thy Kingdom" (he didn't believe in titles). I've never before seen a reference to the Quaker community supporting the Jacobites.


 * Regards Jdorney (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

don't tell me material is unreferenced !!!
Your deletion of text in article Magna Carta is unacceptable. We do not just delete unreferenced text in wikipedia .. but we leave sometime for those who added the text, and others, to provide such references. Please refrain from making such deletions now and in the future. Thank you, Maysara (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Convention Parliament (England), to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  23:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.


 * Please see my recent comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Convention Parliament (England). Regards, AGK   19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Arthur Kemp for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Kemp 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/Arthur Kemp (3rd nomination) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)