User talk:Canterbury Tail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Ben W Bell)
Jump to: navigation, search

Note for all users I shall make any replies to comments on my talk page here on my talk page. I feel this allows everyone to see a consistent conversation rather than one spread across multiple pages. Please make new comments at bottom of page.

Archive 1 - Beginning to September 2006

Archive 2 - September 2006 to 10 January 2007

Archive 3 - 11 January 2007 to 25 April 2007

Archive 4 - 26 April to 2 July 2007

Archive 5 - 3 July 2007 - 30 October 2007

Archive 6 - 31 October 2007 - 15 March 2008

Archive 7 - 16 March 2008 - 31 August 2008

Archive 8 - 1 September 2008 - 26 January 2009

Archive 9 - 27 January 2009 - 13 September 2009

Archive 10 - 14 September 2009 - 21 January 2010

Archive 11 - 22 January 2010 - 29 June 2010

Archive 12 - 30 June 2010 - 15 April 2013

Oerlikon SAM's[edit]

Hi, is this your talk page? Why is linking spam? There are other sites, like worldstadiums.com on al those pages as well. Why can they have a link and other sites not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staafros1 (talkcontribs) 15:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved this 3 SAM informations for one of them a page existet allready, for the 2 others i createt a new page for each, they can get linked now also with the same pages in german wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. In future please use edit summaries so people don't think your edits are vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Serial comma[edit]

Hi! While I'm not going to make an issue of it, the question of commas before "and" in a list is apparently an open one--more favored in the US than in England, but not unanimously agreed on on either side. I see that from the article here, Serial comma. I tend to favor it, especially in long and more complicated lists. There are situations where one item in a list will in fact have two parts joined by "and." Using a comma before "and," where that is not the case, can reduce ambiguity. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is the Oxford comma I referred to in the comments. However these were just simple lists with commas inserted after the last item and therefore the comma use was incorrect. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

fête[edit]

You have already heard someone pronounce "fight" for the word fête ? 198.105.102.18 (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te69JK28DDo 198.105.102.18 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because I'm going to go clicking on random YouTube videos posted by anonymous users. Canterbury Tail talk 19:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a Quebec accent. 198.105.102.18 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not clicked on it. Why are you posting such random things to my talk page? Canterbury Tail talk 21:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Libya Flag[edit]

The Libyan Flag has dark green at the bottom. The Libyan Government has it dark green. What people think isn't always what the truth is.

Batreeqah (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to tell that to the government of Libya who uses a light green. http://www.pm.gov.ly/ , the embassy http://libyanembassy.ca/home/ and all other sources in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

County flags[edit]

Can you explain your in depth knowledge of Ireland and its counties? and why you refute the de facto countrywide usage of what is known as the "county colours" both in my county where they are flown alongside the Ireland and European flag and for example here as you can see outside government buildings in Dublin castle

Dublin Castle Upper Yard county flags.jpg

. which has nothing to do with a GAA event despite their initial formation by said organization a 100 years ago Caomhan27 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As you've been asked by other users, please provide references to back up these flags as the official flags of the counties. Everything that goes on Wikipedia needs to be referenced if requested and I find it highly unlikely that a GAA colours flag is used as the official or de facto flag of a county a GAA only represents sports and not even all sports at that. I also note that the flags that you claim in the photo attached is not the same as the flags you've been adding to articles. If they are de facto you should be able to easily find references. Canterbury Tail talk 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The flags shown in the image which itself is a reference, have the arms of the county on top of the the de facto "county colours" which is also how the flags are used, which outlines to an even greater extent the correlation, again i must stress this is outside dublin castle an official government of Ireland building I assume you are not contending to be a higher authority and this usage is replicated across the country in many instances. As I'm sure you know being de facto they will not be cited in official documents etc or simple google searches and so the best sources are the images showing their use in context. Caomhan27 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A flag of two colours, and a flag of two colours with a coat of arms superimposed over the top are two different flags. If it's de facto then there can be found a reliable reference somewhere. It may not be a government reference, but if it's de facto the someone will have documented or commented on such a thing. Currently the edits are Original research. Oh and the conversation should be moved to the Counties of Ireland page. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, mate.[edit]

Sorry about the Blade Runner thing. God, I feel like an idiot. What was going through my head?

No worries. It happens. Canterbury Tail talk 16:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

tell someone who cares[edit]

warned for demanding answers?! im accused for making "disruptive editing" yet the accuser can point out where and what i wrote?!?!

now you warning me for demanding answers? haha guess what? tell someone who cares because I DONT! i neither tolerate or respect admins like that 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No I warned you for calling other editors propagandists. Asking for answers and reasons is perfectly fine. Asking for references to be verified, reliable sources etc is completely acceptible. Calling others propagandists because they don't see your perspective isn't. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why instant copyright troll delete when I am the actualy owner of the content (or representing them)?

wiki Organisation for European Interstate Cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karat32 (talkcontribs) 13:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Because that's the way Wikipedia works, and we have no evidence that you're the owner of the material. We can't have copyrighted material posted on the site without express permission. Even if you're representing them it doesn't give you the right to give up their copyright on the material. See Wp:Copyright for more details. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

NI/TE[edit]

I throw a open reference on there after your revert, from the Irish Justice Department, it shows wider usage outside of the NI assembly, for a common usgae. Murry1975 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, thanks. I've been looking for a better one from a Northern Ireland or UK source rather than from another country, but it'll be fine for now. Even the Irish Wikipedia uses that name, so not sure where the edit change from the other user came from. Canterbury Tail talk 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Hi, is this the right place to talk? If not excuse me for that. But why did you delete those www.stadiumzone.weebly.com links on stadium pages? I really don't understand. Worldstadiums.com and fussballtempel.net have links on almost all those pages and that's fine with you, then why can't stadiumzone have some links? They have great, large stadium panorama pictures and information about the stadiums. Staafros1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staafros1 (talkcontribs) 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a collection of links and those pages already have links about photos and additional stadium info. There may need to be a culling of those links as well, but basically Wikipedia isn't here to provide connections to other sites, only to link when they add encyclopaedic content outside of the article itself. As you say they already have links to other sites, therefore we don't need more. Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


  • Good day. Check the Talk Page for Abbotsford. cited sources are there for the origin of the name and pronunciation.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.156.109 (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Muslim Nobel Laureates[edit]

Thanks for blocking the Non- Admin Users from the Page. The edits were removal of non constructive comments which have nothing to do with the article. Kindly consider reviewing the edits made by shashifakram. Comments by Abdus Salaam have nothing to do with the article. It affects the NPOV of the article. The second edit about Abdus Salaam is essential as he has been declared a non Muslim by Legal System in Pakistan. He is a non Muslim and an Ahmaddiya. He should not even be on the list considering the views of the Muslim Communities on Ahmaddiya. However since he considered himself a Muslim thus adding a single word Ahmaddiya is not wrong. Edits made by Shashifakhram are not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.117.25 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Kindly review the article regarding Dr. Abdus Salaam http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100173926/why-abdus-salam-pakistans-great-physicist-has-been-written-out-of-history-by-his-own-country/ 182.68.117.25 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved. I stopped some edit warring and I'll stop it again if need be. The rest is a pure edit war, no vandalism involved from what I can see. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Transys Semiconductors[edit]

I note you took off the links to our site but left on others that add nothing but links to the homepage, why the inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahhta (talkcontribs) 14:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the other sites on the list have names such application note and then link straight to the products page, thus a 'trick' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahhta (talkcontribs) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the others, I just noticed that you're spamming links to your company. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

IRA Picture[edit]

The image you're claiming is a misrepresentation is from a page called "Derry IRA Patrol & Weapons". It purports to show the IRA in various guises. The UDR did not carry the Thompson submachine gun. I suggest you leave the image alone on the page, especially as it's Troubles page and restricted to 1RR. Start a discussion on the image talk page and it can be resolved there but don't go round accusing me of misrepresentation. You can examine all the images of mine you want to - you won't find anything wrong. a little bit of WP:GOODFAITH might go a long way in your case. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already apologised on your talk page. Must have been an edit conflict. Canterbury Tail talk 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I noted that. May I respectfully suggest that in future you examine the detail very closely before making such a serious accusation. I was deeply offended. I've picked the best licence I could. If you have any suggestions as to what other form of licencing could be used then I'd love to hear them because I wasn't entirely happy myself. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay fair enough, that's what I get for rush editing. Again, apologies, my mistake. As for licensing, I'm not a complete expert myself but I think they best would have to be a fair use of some sort. CC can't be used as that is giving up rights to the image which aren't yours to give away. Unfortunately we have no idea who originated the image which makes it much trickier. I think that kind of thing is best handled by the experts over at the copyright noticeboards, but I can't seem to find the link right now. I'll have a look and see what I can find. I just know CC won't apply. Canterbury Tail talk 16:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok when you've finished wiping that egg off your face go and have a cup of coffee. I've tagged the image with {wrong-license} so somebody should have a look at it sooner or later. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've begun a discussion about this image on its talkpage (here). ~Asarlaí 16:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought you might want to know. I've nominated File:TSMG UDR 1.JPG for deletion. I went back to the source page as a result of a doubt thrown up by another editor and the caption wording seems to have changed which clarifies the situation more and I now believe this is a photograph of UDR soldiers with a captured Thompson sub-machine gun. The file has been removed from both articles I was using it on. Like you I want to be absolutely certain that what I'm posting is accurate. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I admit there is confusion on that page regarding the actual photo contents, it doesn't seem clear. Oh and I apologise again for the whole misrepresentation thing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no confusion when I first looked at it and when you looked again. The caption has been changed now (I wonder how they knew to change it) leaving no ambiguity. Don't worry about it. From my perspective it was almost at the end of the day and I get a bit cranky then unless matron has made me lie down for my nap. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy Irvine (musician)[edit]

Dear 'Canterbury Tail',

Thank you for the comments you added to the subject article yesterday, and for adding the 'Cleanup' tag at its head.

I have now removed all the editorial comments (i.e. "[To be expanded later]") I had inserted into the original article a few days ago. I fully agree with you that I shouldn't have done that (I even thought about *not* doing it while I was doing it!) but they helped me add structure at the time, and with planning later changes. In any case, I have removed them all today and also polished the existing 'text stubs' to make them more legible for now; I intend to improve on these over the next few days and weeks. Thank you for pointing this out; it was an easy improvement for me to apply, and I obviously wish to remain a good citizen of WP. ;-)

Your comment about the amount of detail I added to the article has caused me to reflect on my approach as a contributor. You will obviously have noticed that my goal is to inform the readers about the professional career of this musician without writing a biography (note the absence of sections on 'Personal life' and the like). So, the article essentially consists of a chronological list of his projects and main career events, which can of course be quite dry (boring?) unless one is interested in the subject. So, his career being such a long one, I decided to make the text more accessible by creating a sub-section for each decade, and then breaking each of these down further with a paragraph on each major career event or milestone. Inevitably, the article therefore reads like a long list of projects, most of which were either tours or recordings. For the latter, I supply the list of personnel and briefly discuss each track, along with details either on the genesis or content of the track, or on the instrument(s) used. As you noticed, I have made extensive use of 'wikilinks' to enrich the reader's experience with easy access to other parts of the encyclopedia (one of WP's most wonderfully didactic features, by the way).

If I were to remove some of the details I included, then I feel this would impoverish the encyclopedia. For example, I aim to anticipate the reader's potential questions about a given topic, such as: "Why and in what ways is Bulgarian traditional music important to Andy Irvine? What's special about Bulgarian traditional music? I want to learn more about it and understand it better."

So, please would you be kind enough to give me a few examples of what you viewed as "too much detail" and, also, "impenetrable walls of text"? That would help me understand in what ways you think the article should look and how I could improve it further. Perhaps I might also suggest that a reader motivated to find out more about this musician by consulting WP, say, after attending one of his concerts, might expect to find the informative details I have supplied, and most likely enjoy reading about them more that an expert editor such as yourself, who would justifiably view the content simply as text to be reviewed for its conformity to editorial rules. (And I certainly don't mean to imply that I challenge either the value of editorial rules, or the need for editors to enforce them.)

Thank you also for altering my use of 'Derry' (which was mentioned as such in the original source) into 'Londonderry', and I note your mission to contribute to the clarity of references to geographical locations. Would you agree that the combined 'Derry/Londonderry' has emerged as the norm in recent years, certainly in the media? If so, would you agree that I update the article accordingly? Thank you for your consideration and response, at your convenience.

Finally, by "comments in the open text", did you mean the quotations I corroborated with references to reliable, third party sources? In the case of the section on 'Woody Guthrie influences', for example, I quoted Irvine's words from the original article in Frets #73 because I thought the use of his own 'voice' would add vivacity to the WP article. There are more quotes later, again because I felt they add life to the text while also conforming to the need for as many reliable citations as possible. These quotations are there because they add valuable information to the reader about why certain events happened, or why the individual(s) concerned made certain decisions.

Thank you once again for your helpful assistance; I appreciate your constructive comments. With kind regards; Patrick. Pdebee (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 'Canterbury Tail'; I have taken action as per your suggestion a few days ago:
1) I have removed all my editor's comments "[Section to be expanded later]";
2) I have removed two quotations and de-italicized the rest, left them in quotation marks and 'boxed' them (as per the WP guidelines for quotations containing >40 words);
3) I have addressed your suggestion about "impenetrable walls of text" by adding an additional level of titled sub-sections (these not only add space in the text but also enable the reader to go straight to a specific sub-section from the Table of Contents, without having to browse through the whole article);
4) I have kept your modification of 'Londonderry', which I grant you is the official, legal name of the city and county, but have preceded it with 'Derry', as is now the established norm in the media, taking also into consideration that a large majority of people in both communities also refer to the city and county as 'Derry' (as per the article on the subject in WP itself).
5) I have looked at other WP articles and have concluded that many of them could also be accused of providing "too much detail". I have therefore decided to keep the details I originally added, because they provide a level of precision and completeness that would enrich the experience of the reader interested in learning more about this musician and his contributions to the genre. When there was an existing WP article on a related subject (such as the albums released by Planxty, for example), I have purposefully refrained from duplicating that information in the article on Andy Irvine (musician).
I therefore believe I have taken careful consideration of your suggestions and have acted on most of them. In the absence of any communications from you since your intervention, I will conclude that my actions have addressed your issues and I will therefore remove the 'cleanup tag' that you inserted in the article. Of course, if you disagree with any of the above, then I am sure you will want to tell me and I will be glad to review any further, constructive suggestions you wish to offer.
With kind regards; Patrick. Pdebee (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Good job. One thing, I've changed the reference to County Derry back to County Londonderry. As per WP:IMOS the name of the county used on Wikipedia is County Londonderry as that is the only name it's ever had. For the city we use Derry, but this is a clear reference to the county so only County Londonderry is appropriate. The subjects views are not a point of consideration on this. We don't use / designations either. It's a simple County Londonderry for the county, and Derry for the city. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello 'Canterbury Tail'; Thank you for your helpful response (and praise). I fully agree with you on the point you make about County Londonderry; I hadn't seen the WP:IMOS article until you mentioned in your in-situ update in the article itself but now that I have read it, I can only apologize for causing you unnecessary work. All in all, your suggestions have enabled me to improve the article and I am glad of the outcome. Thank you for your patience and keep well. With kind regards; Patrick.Pdebee (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries. The article looks a lot better now, good job. Canterbury Tail talk 14:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reposession etc.[edit]

Per your reversion at List of British words not widely used in the United States, presumably this entry at List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom ought to come out as well? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I love stuff like this, thanks for pointing out these articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding topic ban[edit]

Avatar: The Last Airbender is not part of WP:ANIME's scope nor universally considered "anime" nor "manga". It is made by two americans and the animation was produced in korea. Neither of them are Japanese.Lucia Black (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It comes under Anime broadly construed, which is the wording of the ban. I'm not trying to block you, just trying to warn you that you could be blocked for it under the interpretation of the topic ban. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Derry[edit]

CanterburyTail, I was led to believe by Murry1975 that he would raise an RFC on the issue. This is the reason why I allowed the RFC I had raised to be closed. If the template says "official_name", should that field not then be populated with the official name "Londonderry", after all the text does say "officially Londonderry". This being the case, do I need consensus to make a change that is already in the body of the text and inline with the infobox template? If you have an issue with the infobox template you should really take you issue up somewhere else other than the Derry page. This is an infobox issue, not a content issue.Dubs boy (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a content issue and has been discussed on the talk page with no consensus to change it. It is not an issue with the infobox itself, but the content that goes into it and the definition of official. Discuss it on the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 17:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you too involved to issue the block? There's a strong case for a block immediately. He asked on the Talk page if he could make the edit if there were no objections. He was told that he has no consensus - so he ignored that and just makes the edit anyway. That's intentionally disruptive. He was warned on this previously, once by you. --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe I'm too involved, I'm not involved in the discussion just in policing the discussion and consensus. However he has not edited the article again since so I can't block the user. He's been warned about making an edit against consensus, he hasn't made the edit, so I can't block. Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not exactly correct. After DubsBoy posted that he'd make the change if nobody objected on the Derry Talk page, I immediately responded that he does not have a consensus for the change. He was warned. But he made the edit anyway. He even sought clarification, and I again responded immediately that he needed consensus to make the change. So he was warned, twice, and went ahead and made the edit anyway. --HighKing (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes but I warned him in an official capacity after the edit had been made. I can't block a user for an edit I gave them a warning about after warning them, they need to repeat the behaviour before that can happen after the warning. Canterbury Tail talk 11:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious Highking? You are currently on yet another topic ban, you have a history of sock puppetry and now you are trying to get me blocked for making an edit which is factual. Are you for real man? Canterbury Tail, why does Highking continue to medal in these discussions when their topic bans suggest they are not qualified to do so. And for the record I've made 4 edits over 3 months to this page. Also Highking made a revert which I believe goes against their topic ban also.Dubs boy (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Carter Article[edit]

Hello! It's regarding the Sheila Carter article. I did not write most of it but recently made a few changes and corrections. If you take a look at other Wikipedia soap opera character articles, you'll see that they too have very few sources in their storyline sections. This is because it's articles written by viewers and fans who viewed the show on TV (or online) and then described what they saw.

These links, http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php & http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php , resume most everything you see on the Wiki Sheila article. This link, http://tvmegasite.net/transcripts/yr/older/ , an this link, http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/episodes/ , also resume storylines. What else can be used than these links? It's just description of fictional events; this is why I think these links suffice. Israell (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hibernia Networks[edit]

Canterbury, This line alone goes against IMOS, are you serious? "Hibernia manages cable landing stations in Dublin, Ireland; Coleraine, Northern Ireland" But Coleraine is also in Ireland. I am as much a SPA as anyone of the BI/IMOS warriors on the scene. Please refrain from personal attacks. thanks, Dubs boy (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see that line. Taken with that line then yes, the ROI applies. I've partially undone my revert. Canterbury Tail talk 22:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It just seems like you followed me there then made a revert because it was made by me. Check the edit next time.Dubs boy (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Following people on there edits? What type of person would do that [1], [2]. No really related subjects are they? Murry1975 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm more concerned with Murry1975's inability to spell 'County'.Dubs boy (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Neo ^[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Canterbury Tail. You have new messages at Neo ^'s talk page.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yebira[edit]

Canterbury Tail, I noticed that you reverted a recent edit to the Yebira article, I tried to revert your edit but as you can see I am not very experienced at such things, sorry for messing things up. Can you take a look at the edits you reverted again? In the process you removed a good image, an image gallery, a template that added the article to other related articles, and an external image link to a pinterest site with related images. I am thinking that you reverted the edits due to the external link, if that is so then why revert all of the other edits which are a vast improvement to the article? I can not see what the problem is with the external link, it is not a commercial site as far as I can see but even if it is not appropriate the other edits should be re-added to the article. Thanks 2A00:8C40:40:0:0:0:70E9:7B27 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius and Ef alt[edit]

Regarding these two accounts, User:Epicfailure 2 is also a alternate account of Epicgenius. It made a couple of hundred edits today, block evasion on a massive scale:

Here are the diffs showing that the accounts are connected:

Epicfailure 2 requesting rollback, and claiming to be Epicgenius: [3]

Epicgenius confirming that they are the same person: [4];

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is stuff I would normally post on Epicgenius' talk page, but he banned me from there when I banned him from mine, so I can't.

As part of his latest unblock request, Epicgenius said that he would no longer edit articles that I edited, however at least one of the articles he edited today as Epicfailure 2 (i haven;t looked through them all) was Beate Sirota Gordon, an article I've edited heavily (most contributions by number) and which Epicgenius has never been to. I find it hard to believe that Epicgenius-as-Epicfailure 2 just happened to go to that article randomly, independent of it being an article I've worked on in the past.

I don't think that Epicgenius can be trusted to keep his word. This latest brouhaha started because we made an agreement that we would talk civiliy to each other, I would explain on his talk page when I reverted his edits why I had done so, and he would stop making edits against the consensus reached on the Bowery article. He broke that when he used AWB to make 30+ edits involving "the Bowery". When I reverted his non-consensus edits, he reverted back, thus breaking another part of our agreement, which was no unthinking reverts on his part. I just don't think he's mature enough to make and keep an agreement that goes against what he really wants to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think extending his block even more is the answer. I think the kid needs to have the riot act read to him by an admin: straighten up and fly right, one account only, no block evasion, remove rollback & AWB privileges, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
THanks for the heads up. Canterbury Tail talk 00:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you please take a look a this thread? I think it's self-explanatory. There's also this. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada[edit]

Thanks for your assistance in the official languages matter. Got a lot more resistance than I expected. Knoper (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I just did what I thought was right for the page, not to support one user or another. Canterbury Tail talk 19:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I meant your expenditure of time to help detail a solution, not support. A lot of users get scared off seeing blocks of text, you were able to add to the discussion constructively. Knoper (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Anytime. Canterbury Tail talk 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as how the argument has seemed to devolve into insults, I've just decided to try and get a vote to get the feelings of the editors. Did I use the right format for it? Knoper (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for Europe by Satellite edit[edit]

Thank you for recognizing the problem at Europe by Satellite. It's unfortunate that other Wikipedians would just be ready to dismiss the problem. Percolaytor (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't find any actual copyright violations on the article, so I left everything else as is. Just removed that copyright notice. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on those pages![edit]

I was just getting ready to go through these and tag them for CSD through the same reason the articles were deleted for! Appreciate the help, there. 『Woona』Dear Celestia... 12:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the user unfortunately has a history of non-commuication and copyright infringement. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Genuine (not sarcastic) thanks for indeffing my alternative account[edit]

Thank you very much (genuinely) for blocking my alternative account Ef alt (talk · contribs). Happy holidays, Epicgenius (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, can you unblock Epicfailure 2 in January 2014? I intend to use it as a legit sock in 2014 to edit at a public library, and I will not misuse it as I did in November. If I get blocked again, you can indefinitely block Epicfailure 2. Epicgenius (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

About page protection[edit]

I check my talk page and see you left a message about edit war. I never want to edit anything in these articles. I revert others change because someone just delete the casualties in many articles(Probably 5 or 6 articles).I think should not delete these data which previous people edited. I did not edit any new information. I just prevent others to delete the information of these pages. Moreover I add my reason in all talk pages of these articles,please see the talk page. I don't want to involve any dispute. Thus, please set the page protection in these articles, thank you. These articles are Siege of Suncheon, Siege of Haengju and Siege of Pyongyang (1593).Can you set the page protection because I do not know how to request that? Hope for your reply. Thank you.—Miracle dream (talkcontribs —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pride in using the St. George's Cross[edit]

Can you please explain the inconsistency between how the use of flags in infoboxes is interpreted? It appears Americans are permitted to use them anywhere and everywhere without question, yet in the UK, especially England, people like you are critical, almost embarrassed and most unpatriotic? Wicks Steve (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you are not British would it? Wicks Steve (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Who says I'm not British?
It seems that in the UK people don't like using them because they clutter the infoboxes and don't add anything. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think we would be better of questioning if Americans are right to use flags anywhere and everywhere rather than assuming the British are wrong for choosing not to do so. I think that the OP ties use of flags to the pride and patriotism of editors (rather than their benefit to the encyclopdia) is telling.
The relevant style guide is quite old (though bloated like everything else now) and was originally called simply "flag cruft" (see Cruft). --Tóraí (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User Cluain[edit]

I've highlighted at Cluain's talk page where they have decided to reimpose their view of Derry in place of Londonderry, this time attempting to do it subtlety by changing it to: [[County Derry|Londonderry]]. Mabuska (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker):Its odd five+ year hiatus then returning with SPA-style edits. I cant find a ink between this guy and anyone in the past, lets AGF and hope he either talks about his issue prior to the block being up or doesnt repeat. Canterbury Tail, could you give him the Troubles warning- I a pretty sure Derry/Londonderry swapping is covered under it. If he repeats then we would be able to move him along that road, so to speak. Murry1975 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's strange to suddenly reappear from reasonable edits to pursuing this single mindedly, and only on this one rather obscure page as well. He also edits it logged out, but the IP is blatantly them from a timing observation. Lets see what happens if they return from the current block (which they probably won't is my guess.) Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
And they decided to create a new account to evade their block and continue the edits. Canterbury Tail talk 18:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am going to e-mail them directly- might be helpful in seeing if the account is compromised. Murry1975 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That's actually not a bad idea. Though the IP and other account creation makes it seem unlikely. Thanks for taking an interest. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Well a week and no return contact, me thinks either sleeper sock or compromised account. Murry1975 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it for a while anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Ballenberg - Bernese Midlands House - Ben W Bell 31 Aug 2005.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)



Template:Eventualist[edit]

Hi, I recently made this template:

which you deleted, and received this post on my wall:

Information icon Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a content creator in the top 1000 editors who made this template to post on other content creators' walls. Can I please receive an explanation for this deletion on my talk page? Thanks. PhnomPencil (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a blank template, in mainspace, with edit remarks of testing. This lead me to believe that these were testing edits to a template with no visible function. As a result it was deleted as of no visible use and testing shouldn't take place in mainspace. Canterbury Tail talk 14:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright as another user who has seen and deleted a lot of shit around here let's be real with each other. I made the mistake of writing "test" in the edit summary. But please understand that I am not being WP:POINTy when I maintain that the deletion of the template, templating my talk page as a new user, and arguing that the template was blank is incorrect. You maintain that it was correct. We disagree. I have gone to wp:Requests for undeletion and am posting here to let you know, as it is unfair for only half the argument to be made. Please reiterate your argument there. Thank you. PhnomPencil (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind if you have it undeleted if you feel it's that important, it was deleted on a routine pass through of newly created pages. However I do not appreciate your entitled attitude towards this matter, people don't go through other editors edits to determine if what appears to be a routine cleanup should not be done based on an editors editcount and I fail to see what your edit history has to do with this. It should also be pointed out that it was not "too quick on the button" as it was 42 minutes later that I deleted the template that any editor would have believed to have been a test edit due to it's lack of visible effect, unfinished nature and comments that it was testing in mainspace. Looking at your edit history now I see a lot of deleted articles and a lot of deleted templates so I'm not sure what you're hoping for me to see there. Anyway, feel free to have the template undeleted if you wish, I have no resistance to the idea as long as it's useful, however I don't believe I made an error in deleting it so please don't imply otherwise. Or you can just recreate the template. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you say you don't mind, I am going to undelete it. I think both of you should walk away from this. On the one hand, the fact that it said testing made it, well, seem very much like a test, and deleting test edits is quite proper. There was no way to know it was not. On the other, it was not empty, placing a visible (but small and not easily noticed) icon (Thai Buddhism Portal icon.gif) on the far upper right of the page and in any event many templates have no display on their template pages, with the coding nevertheless performing some function in intended use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Causeway Coast[edit]

Hi. In this edit-sum you note that we shouldn't refer to "Causeway Coast" because the "Causeway Coast" is a large area outside the scope of the article. Per the UNESCO definition and scope, the "Causeway Coast" is only the 70 hectares surrounding the causeway formation itself - which pretty much just covers the visitor centre, and the paths to and slightly beyond the "hub" of the causeway formation. This would seem to be well within the scope of the article (consider for example the access, flora and fauna content). The "Causeway Coast" isn't the entire stretch of coast including half of Antrim, Bushmills or anything like it (UNESCO isn't "protecting" the farms and the like around the area - just the several hundred metres by several hundred metres around the site). So, I don't really see that excising "Coast" because it's outside the scope of the article is strictly a valid argument. (In fact, I would point out that the infobox has referred to the UNESCO name for nearly 7 years, and that has seemed reasonable/appropriate to editors in all that time.) I am not saying that because it's been that way for 7 years, it should stay that way. But I'm saying that the argument provided for now removing it doesn't seem correct to me. You reverted my "tweak" (of the immediately preceding edit - which had no edit sum or explanation) on "Good Faith" grounds. Implying that I had made a mistake in restoring the UNESCO name. I wonder whether you might want to reconsider whether it was actually the previous edit that was actually the "Good Faith" error? Guliolopez (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, my mistake on the coast thing. I find it odd though that only UNESCO seems to refer to it by that, the authorities in Northern Ireland don't. The National Trust who govern it don't. It's only under WHC designation that it seems to be called that so I don't see how it can be the official name for it. So my initial reasoning was, as you pointed out, incorrect. However I don't see how we can use that as the native name since that's not what it's called natively. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
OK - Thanks. I will revert for now. But, if you think it's warranted, I guess we can have a quick CON discussion (on the article talk page) about whether the infobox label should be updated for COMMONNAME reasons. (Which I guess is a slightly different argument). Guliolopez (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely a conversation that should take place on that talk page and not here. I'm okay with the revert and I'll start a topic conversation there at some point. Canterbury Tail talk 14:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bradley International Airport[edit]

Hi, this is AirportExpert. According to the Southwest Airlines official website, you can book a flight from Las Vegas to Hartford for any day, including off-season times. If you have another more reliable source stating otherwise, then you can change the page, but according to the airline's official website, Las Vegas to Hartford is indeed a regularly scheduled flight. Also, according to Bradley International Airport's official website, Las Vegas is not listed as a seasonal destination. Thank you.--AirportExpert (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh well if that's the case then apologies. I thought it was just a removal of a tag as has happened frequently on that page (hence the note.) In which case you should remove the note as well. Canterbury Tail talk 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

UnbiasedVictory[edit]

You probably know this already but don't expect any kind of dialogue with UV. Using his past track record, the most likely response is that your entries on his talk page will be deleted. Natty10000 | Natter  19:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Elite Beast is known as Beast Mode Ethan on Youtube‎[edit]

Please delete [Elite Beast is known as Beast Mode Ethan on Youtube‎] again. I accidentally recreated it when I tagged it for speedy. Meters (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. No worries. Canterbury Tail talk 19:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ireland BCE[edit]

See WP:ERA. We shouldn't change established style and BCE is not specially preferred. The article uses AD nor CE. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, I didn't check through the entire article just saw the user changing one instance. I should have checked further. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

destruction? malicious content delete?[edit]

Dear Sir,

I finished a phd on social anthropology i have noticed much of the work i drew upon namely on the Cheema article. I am shocked to notice there has been a sustained and subtle attack on removing more than 90% of the content, content which had verified and provable content. I am in dismay the article has been reduced to loosely one line of text! please check history, how can over 90% of well cited text disappear? Since i personally can prove the citations i can also prove my academic credentials if required. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.27.125 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

example of previous article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheema&oldid=394553550 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.27.125 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

...here we go again.[edit]

[5] Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've given him a warning. I don't believe this is blockable just yet but I've made it clear that if he makes that edit again without discussion and consensus he will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Obvious sock activity on Turkey page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
THanks. I've blocked the IPs, for what it's worth and protected the article against non-autoconfirmed users editing for a month. Canterbury Tail talk 23:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Good solution. Quick question: is the IP block an IP range block? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
No it's not, not sure of the range of it just yet. Lets keep an eye out. Canterbury Tail talk 00:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
And the personal attacks and bad faith remarks he makes toward me on his talk page I find unacceptable. WP:HARDBLOCK? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the help on noticebord. But I think this IP 46.143.214.22 is different? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And now this IP reverting the same page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/126.48.42.184 They deleting my comments. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Good luck with that Alien edit. I agree, but . . . the SF film folks are a TOUGH crowd. HullIntegrity (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The UPC IP guy[edit]

I see you have blocked him for a week, for his B/I editing, and aggressive tp attitude, but since it is within the scope of it, I would ask because of his constant POV edits, should he be given a Troubles warring? Murry1975 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not convinced it is within the scope of the Troubles restrictions to be honest. I agree it could be considered borderline, but I'm not sure. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:GS/BI covers it not the troubles (sorry).
"Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors Murry1975 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah good call, I'd forgotten entirely about that. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)