User talk:Visium/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Benjaminstewart05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

TheRingess 10:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Benjamin Stewart
''Hi there. I deleted Benjamin James Stewart in line with the discussion at Articles for deletion/Benjamin James Stewart. See also the associated discussion mentioned there. Essentially, the material was not verifiable by the usual means and so it was deleted.'' -Splash talk 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Banning?
Hi, I am unsure of the direct protocols for banning someone from a page etc because of vandalism, but you seem like a good administrator, so I would suggest that because of personal attacks to me and also vandalism to the page Portsmouth Grammar School, Pirate Pete should be considered. Weigh up the evidence for yourself, however I feel that it is certainly worth considering. I do my best to revert vandalism on this page, however I cannot be on there all the time and I also feel he (and some IP addresses) are doing it to wind me up. I have posted a warning on his talk page. Thank you for your time. Benjaminstewart05 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! Official guidance on vandalism of Wikipedia can be found at Vandalism. A cursory scan of Pirate Pete's contributions to the article on your school appears to show consistent attempts to vandalise said article.  I will follow the guidance laid out for admins and place the appropriate warning template on Pirate Pete's user page.  If he vandalises again in the near future this will then constitute a breach of policy and etiquette, leading to a block against editing being placed on his user account.  If you need any more clarification, then please don't hesitiate to ask myself or another admin. Regards,   (aeropagitica)   18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uberac 9
The discussion has been moved to a more appropriate place - here

Portsmouth Grammar School
''I see that you removed my advert tag from Portsmouth Grammar School. I am curious about why you did this, especially in view of the comments you left on the article's talk page. (note: If this message reads like an accusation, rest assured, it is not. It's simply a request for information)'' Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 16:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just couldn't see where you were coming from. I think that the music section simply reflects the wealth of talent in the school and the fact that the school is a centre of excellence for it in the region. It is more figurative than anything. However I have put it back on, in case anyone else dissagrees with me. However I doubt that any edits will stay on there for long - there is a veritable community of POV wikipedians proudly editing their school article! Anyway, sorry, I should have discussed it first on a talk page. Regards - Benjaminstewart05 16:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Allow me to explain why I saw the music groups section as an advertisement. Words like "extremely good", "most prestigious", "extremely important events", "highly skilled", "many of the best players", "expertly", "polyrhythmically unrivalled", "virtuosic pieces", "esteemed", "pride and joy", "enjoyed by all", "another skilled ensemble", "string playing talent", "one of the most virtuostic and impressive of the chamber ensembles", "most talented string players", "talented group of musicians", "skilled group", "the talented choral trainer", etcetera, do not meet the neutral point of view. They are subjective, and should be avoided as much as possible. It's not up to wikipedia to decide whether the groups are any good or not, that's for those who read this article and have heard the groups play to decide. If the groups are notable, the article should mention why they are notable (e.g. having played at the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance at the Albert Hall). If external reviews are included, they should be from authoritative sources: music magazines, newspapers, etc. They should not be from "Collaboratively the music staff, 2006." If you want to, I can put an edited version of this section on my sandbox to show you what I'm talking about. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely understand what you are saying, that it has POV, and I am working on telling people that it shouldn't. But I don't think that specific tag is appropriete, because I don't think that it reads like an advert. It needs a POV tag which I will try to find. The music section needs a cleanup and those who know the music department well are the people to do it - This will happen shortly when I and my fellow PGSers edit it, you can do so, but more information is required which is only known by its audience. Benjaminstewart05 16:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the advert-tag wasn't the best. At the time, I couldn't find a more appropriate one. I think I have now: POV-section. As to the sandbox edit I proposed: I was thinking about a manual of style edit in the wording of the section, without touching the content itself. I indeed don't know the groups, so I won't go into that. That is the "territory" of you and others who know the groups.Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 17:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing that is important to take into account is the No original research policy. I'll let you read that and see how you think it applies to Portsmouth Grammar School. Of course if you want any help do feel free to ask! Petros471 17:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't say never...
''Here. Whilst I think you still have more to learn about Wikipedia, and it's true that things like recent (i.e. it's not a problem if it happend well into the past) edit warring are brought up on WP:RFA, don't say never. I have confidence that with time and experience you can someday make a great admin. Seriously. It might be some time in the future, but don't give up- just be willing to keep learning, make sure mistakes only happen once. So keep working on articles, learn how this place works. Once you have done that maybe have a go at some of the more policy type things (pages that start with Wikipedia:), and see if you still want to be an admin. You know where my talk page is if you want help with something, Petros471 17:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I was involved in an edit war just before my RfA, and it didn't stop me from becoming an admin. Admins are no angels. What matters is how you deal with issues, what you learn from them and if and how it influences your activities on Wikipedia in later stages.'' Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 17:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Benjaminstewart05.jpg
''Thanks for uploading Image:Benjaminstewart05.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.''

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

''This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)''

Question
''On wikipedia, obviously a global venture, what is the take on spelling? Because I get really annoyed when people on wikipedia spell paediatrics with no a and humour with no u. What is the official stance, and can I start clearing up some of the horrificaly americanised spelling. Surely proper english has the upper hand as the language was actually born here? Benjaminstewart05 09:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)''
 * Hi Benjamin! Yes, Wikipedia is very much a global venture, so we have to accept that there are many other editors who use English differently to us.  So Wikipedia always has had, and always will have, a mixture of British and US English (plus of course Australian, Canadian, African, and lots of others).  Generally the policy is to use the local version English for local topics, and to avoid words that are specific to US or British English where we can.  For small differences like humour/humor, we just have to get used to it not always being the way we are used to.  The full policy is here. Enchanter 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Thank you very much for your assistance.
 * Benjaminstewart05 10:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)''

Re:Barnstar - But I don't know where to put it
''Thanks! As until now I've only had one other barnstar, there isn't anywhere to put them apart from my talk page. My userpage is currently undergoing renovation, so I'll probably move it there when that is done. Thanks again and I'm glad you're no longer mad at me :)'' Petros471 10:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A silly accident
What did I vandalize?Jesseoneill 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - I meant to welcome you, but instead gave you a nasty greeting - you didn't vandalise anything, I just accidently pasted the wrong thing - a silly mistake for which I apologise. Benjaminstewart05 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. Cheers.Jesseoneill 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Couple Three random things
''Image:Benjaminstewart05.jpg is still not tagged properly, as it doesn't contain any license information. Licensing is very important to Wikipedia because if it gets copyright stuff wrong it could get sued and shut down (if it got bad). I suggest you take a look at Image_copyright_tags and pick one of those tags. GFDL-self is a good one (as it licenses the images with the same license, GFDL, as Wikipedia text is) but there are others there you might prefer.

''Edit summaries are really useful things, and not just for articles. It helps find a particular edit in page histories, and things like that.''

''Talking about useful edit histories, sometimes it's good to use the 'Show preview' button to save a long line of small edits filling up a page history. Also saves some work for the Wikipedia servers (and they are slow, overworked things most of the time).''

Hope you find those pedantic points useful :) Petros471 20:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving article discussions
It sounds like a reasonable thing to do so you might 1) be bold and try it, 2) ask within the article discussion if anyone would object and if not, do it, 3) don't take this wrong, but you might find a more engaged admin to ask - I've been rather inactive lately and am pretty tied up by the outside world, too.

I'd suggest 2) as a good approach. Post a query, wait a day or two, and then if no one takes issue, go for it. You've always got your query for justification, and as long as you archive everything, I wouldn't think anyone would complain. Sorry I wasn't more help. Good luck. Catbar (Brian Rock) 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:ARCHIVE. Generally yes, it is a good idea to archive large sections of inactive old discussion on an article's talk page. Use the cut and paste subpage method. Petros471 08:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Userpage dispute
A certain user known to me outside of wikipedia in the real world has set up a user account (another to his own -i.e sockpuppetry), however my query is this, the page is User:benjaminstewartO5 - compared to mine User:benjaminstewart05; as you can see, very similar. Could you please delete this userpage and account as he already has another one, it has been done simply to annoy me, and it is very annoying. Thanks. Benjaminstewart05 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, wouldn't call that a 'dispute', that was blatant vandalism... Anyway I've deleted the userpage and blocked. Petros471 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh by the way, what account is the 'other one'? Petros471 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is User:Benedictwest. Have you blocked the IP address or just the userpage? - because I think that he should be able to use User:Benedictwest, as I know that he needs another chance to prove that he wants to do good to wikipedia (and this can be seen on the PGS article where he revamped it considerably) and would be very angry at me if his IP was blocked.
 * Benjaminstewart05 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually on second looks, that doesn't look like him, but it could be. I wouldn't do anything to it, because it may not be him. Please don't block the IP address for User:benjaminstewartO5, because I know that that person does actually want to make some constructive edits.
 * Benjaminstewart05 21:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Userpage dispute
I blocked the account (as well as delete the userpage, but that's a different thing). There is an autoblocker, which I have no control over, that does block IPs used by blocked accounts in certain situations (I think, but not totally sure, doing things like trying to register new accounts etc.) so as long as Benedictwest behaves, he should be ok. Tell him to email me if he has a problem with it. Looks like 195.93.21.36 (an AOL IP) is involved as well...

Oh and could you slow down how fast you archive your talk page- it's usual to wait while after a conversation is over before archiving. But well done on archiving at all- a lot better than deleting comments straight off! Petros471 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Oxfordunifromair.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Oxfordunifromair.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Userpage Question
hi, how do i create y own article?

Mike


 * Hi there - First of all I would read some of the above guides and guidelines, and then you can set about writing a really great article. To start an article, simply type in the title to the search bar, and if it already exists it will come up with the article, if it doesn't it will come up with a list of options, click on create article, and type away. I would suggest looking at the edit text of some other articles to learn how to format the article and make it look good, remember you can copy, paste and change things. Most importantly, be bold about it all, if you make a major mistake, someone else will tidy it up, and everything is reversible. If you have any more questions or queries, don't hesitate to ask. Benjaminstewart05 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to create a userpage, just click on the tab at the top of the screen "userpage" and type away, again, the same formatting applies. Benjaminstewart05 17:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Napster question
Hi How do I get an official ruling as to whether links to free content on Napster.com are OK?

The content is free and very broad and I think would make a useful addition to the external links section on an artists page and to the discography. It is a commercial site and the content is supported by advertising but as the content is so useful and free I think it should be considered in the same way as links to IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, All Music Guide etc

Thanks Waldzazi


 * Hi there, well I couldn't find any guidelines on it. However as far as my legal knowledge goes (and that is not very far), it is absolutely not a copyright infringement because wikipedia is not responsible for the content on those pages. Indeed napster has its own wikipedia article, and the link to napster is on napster, so I believe it is fine to create that link. Wikipedia is not responsible for it, wikipedia can't be prosecuted for its content, the link is simply to provide further information about the website and to show a source for the article. However I wouldn't go on an article and say that you can download such and such's music for free here, as that would be a copyright infringement. I hope that I have cleared up any confusion. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. And one last thing, please sign off messages with four tildes ~ . Benjaminstewart05 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops I thought you were an admin


 * Nice of you to think that I was an admin, I will take it as a compliment! Benjaminstewart05 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben
 * There should be no problem as the content is perfectly legal.
 * Napster was able to cajole the RIIA into offering free content for a portion of the ad revenues.
 * This will probably come up again as an admin blocked me for spamming, his reason being that Napster was a commercial site.
 * I pointed out that there are many links to commercial sites on the Wiki including thousands of links to Amazon.com and stated my opinion that they have been and should be judged by their usefullness.
 * He seemed concerned that Napster not be favored over the Itunes Store and as Itunes offers no free content I found this argument kind of weak.
 * He was also of the opinion that the Napster links were of no value.
 * I pointed out to him as an example that Napster has over 71 albums by Bob Dylan that are free and that a link in an encylopedia entry for Bob Dylan would certainly be enhanced by a link to practically his entire recorded output which can then be listened to by the song, the entire album or even in its entirety for free.
 * He didnt agree and since I feel the point is kind of obvious I suspect he has a bias towards the Itunes store.
 * Oh well, I imagine this will get kicked around until there is some official decision on it.
 * Thanks for the response
 * Sorry if there are mistakes in my edits Im just learning the HTML now
 * Waldzazi 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I have looked a bit more into it, and I agree with you, these links can be added because wikipedia is not responsible for any outside content, and the links at the bottom of the pages are simply suggestions. The fact that the site is perfectly legal makes it even more fine. Your edit on the page was fine - we are all learning:)Benjaminstewart05 07:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Napster has now been added to the spam blacklist. See here. Petros471 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Love Ends Disaster!
Just to let you know I moved your comment down to the bottom of the page (correct position). You were probably confused by the re-listing sign, don't worry about it. By the way, I'm not stalking you- I saw that because I have that AFD page on my watchlist as I want to see how the closing admin deals with it (it's a close one, and I want to learn how to close AfD debates, one of the things admins do). I see you are becoming an Inclusionist rather than a Deletionist (I hope I can't be totally labelled either, though you would probably call me a deletionist ;) Anyway keep up the good work; I'm glad I'm proving one of the other admins wrong when they said I should just block you for the Uberac thing! Petros471 20:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupid spelling (I never did get on with it...)
Be polite, please! See also this. Thanks. Petros471 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the etiquette, but I get annoyed about that a lot, and it wasn't actually directed at anyone, more at my screen. I had already read those quidelines, and well haematology developed in England and we can't have American spelling all over the place, it is simply bad English - I accept that for regional subjects that regional spellings should be used, but really!!!, for medicine related articles, America only developed in the last 200-300 years, and the bizarre spellings even later!!!!, so why should we all demean ourselves with American spellings.
 * Do you see everything???
 * Benjaminstewart05 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst it wasn't directed at any one person (if it was I'd have pointed you to WP:NPA), it was directed at Americans in general. Calling a group of people stupid is rather insulting ("Treat others as you would have them treat you"). If you met me in person, you mind find me agreeing with your views, but here on Wikipedia we have to realise that it's an international project. Getting into disputes over this sort of thing doesn't really help develop an encyclopedia. If you think there is a good case for that article to be re-named (i.e. moved) then to be honest the way you wrote that message on the talk page isn't going to help the cause ("spelling it wrongly just makes you look stupid"). With this edit all you did was make the link point to the re-direct page rather than the actual article, which doesn't achieve anything. So please do tread (or type!) carefully, be mindful of other people's thoughts, and learn from feedback, don't get depressed by it. Also check your email. Petros471 17:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the constructive critisms. I will, in future try and be more accepting, and change things in a nicer more constructive way. The reason I am here is to help build a great encyclopedia, and I understand that by being nasty I am only hindering that, and I am sorry. Thank you again. Benjaminstewart05 19:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Great :) Petros471 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)