User talk:Nick Cooper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Proposal to split Jeremy Bamber[edit]

Exok objects to the closure of the discussion about whether to split Jeremy Bamber into two articles — one about the murders and one a biography. He has requested that I make a formal proposal to split the articles on the talk page. I'm very sorry to ask this, but it would be appreciated if everyone who commented at the BLPN here could offer their opinion again at Talk:Jeremy_Bamber#Proposal_to_split_this_article_into_a_murders_article_and_a_biography. (Also, for some reason, that link isn't going directly to the subsection, so please scroll up a little to find it.) Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Joel Brand[edit]

Thanks for your note about this. I don't think I did know about the BBC's play. When you say the programme no longer exists, you mean it was lost or destroyed? Pity, if that's the case; I would have loved to try to track down a copy. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS

Orphaned non-free image File:Peppa Bicycles.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Peppa Bicycles.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Blunt force solution to a disagreement that probably needs an admin with more tact[edit]

I've protected the article for 3 days. Please form consensus for the article title and scope on the article talk page. Once consensus is clear on both, use {{editrequest}} to ask for an admin to change it. Until then, don't leave any more messages on 89.100.*'s talk page, and don't start reverting on that article again when the protection expires. You've both used up your allotment of reverts on that article for a long time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Also, the IP's edits weren't vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Behave[edit]

Nick and 89.100 – I would encourage both of you to refrain from further contentious discussion on Talk:List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland and allow the RFC to run its course. You both have made your positions clear, and repeatedly badgering each other or other editors with your positions is not productive. I moved the article back to its pre-RFC title and move protected it for 30 days. It is also edit protected. Additionally, I have sought input from the Olympic Wikiproject to resolve the 50 meter, Olympic sized and Olympic standard discussion. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick - of course the Talk page is not off-limits, but the repeated badgering every input that you disagree with (same applies to 89.100) is not productive. Allow the RFC to run its course, let others weigh-in without challenging their every word and see how this plays out. This is a 2-3 item list. It is inconsequential in the scheme of ~4M articles. Don't fall into a trap of contentious discussion, it never solves anything. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Police brutality discussion[edit]

Hi, I notice that you contributed to the Cfr dicussion concerning Category Police brutality in England. If I read you correctly your reasons for maintaining the status quo seem to be a) Keep it because Police brutality exists as a phenomenon and b) Incidents are seen as police brutality, "in the eyes of the wider public" and c) It is a useful category.
My point in making the nomination was that labelling anything, whether by the police or anyone else, as "brutality" does not comply with Wikipedia's policy regarding NPOV. To put an article in that category the editor has to make the value judgement that the article is about an example of police brutality, whilst being neutral in our point of view suggests not labelling incidents in that way.
The point, therefore, is whether or not the label "brutality" is POV or not. If it is then we should change the name.
No one is denying that some people get injured by the police (we are not talking about deaths, they are covered under Category:Deaths in police custody). All we are saying is that when people get injured by the police it is not Wikipedia's policy to label those incidents as "brutality" because that is a subjective POV. Therefore, your three reasons do not address the central issue which is: Is calling it "brutality" POV or not? If it is, then we need to change the name.
In light of this, would you be prepared to review the discussion and your contribution to it? If you choose to reply, please do so on the page where the Cfr discussion is taking place. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 07:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ian Tomlinson[edit]

Hi Nick, I seem to recall that you commented on this issue before, and it has come up again, unfortunately during the police officer's trial.

  • The lead currently begins: "Ian Tomlinson ... was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work ... The trial of PC Simon Harwood, a police officer accused of Tomlinson's manslaughter, opened on 18 June 2012 at Southwark Crown Court, and is expected to last up to five weeks."
  • An anon wants to change this to: "Ian Tomlinson ... was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed on his way home from work ... The trial of PC Simon Harwood, a police officer accused of Tomlinson's manslaughter, opened on ..." etc (my emphasis).

There's a discussion here on the BLP noticeboard in case you have any interest in commenting. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No user group yet[edit]

What are you doing? You are not a sysop, rollbacker, reviewer, or autopatrolled user and you have edited more than Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). Get your permissions now! Adjkasi (discuss me) 10:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United Kingdom[edit]

There is a discussion on the article's talk page which may interest you regarding the wording of the beginning of the lead section. Please feel free to comment there. I won't be watching this page so if you want to leave a comment here please leave a {{talkback}} template on my talk page. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

7/7 bombings[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you just made this edit [1] on the 7 July 2005 London bombings article. I have to say that I do have sympathy for the IP's edit here. I have not seen the programme in question so have no personal opinion on the matter. However whether or not it achieved its objective is clearly a matter of subjective opinion. Even if a signicant number of third party sources could be found which supported that claim, a proper neutral wording would be something like 'it was widely described in the media as having successfully debunked a number of the theories'. At present however we have a bald statement of fact with no third party sources at all. That undermines the credibility of the article, and WP. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Beck Plaque.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beck Plaque.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The Falklands Play book.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Falklands Play book.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Poliakoff[edit]

The statement that he is "widely judged amongst Britain's foremost television dramatists", which you have reinstated in this article, needs substantiating. Can you reference this? I acknowledge that SP has a big reputation, but I don't think it is enough simply to assert it.--Agarpp (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverts on Common Purpose article[edit]

I notice you reverted an edit I made to this article (deleting the section "Press coverage related to the Leveson Inquiry") without much explanation, just "deleted conspiracy theory nonsense". Have you got a fuller explanation? I don't believe the fact that you view (maybe rightly) the content of the press articles to be wrong is a justification. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorship![edit]

Nick, With over 12,000 wikiedits since 2006, you have earned the follow recognition. Cheers, and a Merry Christmas across the pond. Lance...LanceBarber (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

Gun politics in the United Kingdom revisited[edit]

Hi Nick.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you reverted my edit to Gun politics in the United Kingdom. I added handguns to the list of prohibited weapons, which they most certainly are under the Firearms Act. I'm sure your revert was in good faith and I've probably misunderstood something about the article structure, but I'd be grateful if you could let me know your reasoning. I will check here for your response so as to preserve the dialogue context. Best regards, --Ef80 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Prohibited weapons" list is for items that cannot be posessed under any circumstances. Some types of handguns are still legal, while there are specific exemptions for other types not generally allowable (e.g. a vet may possess a centre-fire handgun for the purposes of humane killing), so to place handguns as a whole in the list is misleading. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Surely the 5(1)(aba) prohibition of any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall prohibits all handguns? I'm not going to argue the toss over this though, and won't be taking it up on the article talk page. --Ef80 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The length restrictions do not apply to black powder/muzzle-loading pistols or revolvers, but even in the case of cartridge pistols, there are exemptions if it is a trophy of war, of historic interest, or used for starting races, humane killing or signaling. Smooth bore pistols chambered for .410 and 9mm cartridges are also exempt. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, understood. --Ef80 (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited What the Butler Saw (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Cox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of edit revert[edit]

Dear Nick Cooper, here I reverted this edit you made at Yangtse Incident, because your edit stopped the redirect from working. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Regards. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring warning[edit]

Nick, please be sure you don't contribute to an edit war like what's been going at at Gun politics in the United Kingdom. You were just as close to the line as several others. This is just a courtesy notice, but please be wary of such behavior. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:PG-12.png)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:PG-12.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Declining a British honour may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 Woolwich attack may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

H. G. Wells[edit]

I see you reverted my edit to H. G. Wells, on the basis that the term 'the leading charity' is likely a statement of fact rather than promotional as I had considered. It seems to me that such a term may be subjective and could be seen in the same light as terms such as 'the best' or 'the no. 1' etc., who has or would decide if Diabetes UK is the leading charity? Personally I think it is an imprecise term that would be difficult to attach factual basis to (though it is likely the most well known), and I'm not entirely sure it is necessary in the article anyway. Feel free to disagree however, after al there is just as much disagreement as there is agreement here at times. --wintonian talk 14:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

IP block[edit]

Approve icon.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Nick Cooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
194.74.226.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Standards Unit". The reason given for Standards Unit's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully. Why can't I edit Wikipedia? Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy. Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. What can I do now? If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following: Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ".


Accept reason:

I have softened the block against Standards Unit. You should be able to edit now. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

An IP block seems a very blunt instrument to use against an IP linked to a government organisation with around 4,000 staff! Nick Cooper (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't know where these users are coming from, so inadvertently inappropriate autoblocks are bound to occur. At least you don't get something like this nowadays... ;-) King of ♠ 09:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Christians[edit]

Sorry about the wording of my comment. I should have put the offending words into inverted commas. I have responded on the talk page. I am Christian myself, and having studied Islam, I am continually horrified by the way Christians and Jews are represented, both in the Quran and common belief. So far, I have only read one Muslim cleric who has been prepared to acknowledge that Muslim teaching constitutes a blasphemy against Christianity.

Well, you'd better read my current mention of "the Book" and the so-called "Prophet Jesus" on the talk page. You will either be offended or you won't. Amandajm (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages[edit]

Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:H. G. Wells, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Television licensing in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • "commregs" /><ref name="BBCMobilePhones" /> although such recordings may infringe [[copyright]]).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"legitimate point"[edit]

Hi.

This is vandalism. I have read The Dam Busters (book), and the dog is definitely called Nigger (because he was a black dog) and not "wikt:Sambo" which is another racial epithet that some anonymous troll decided to add to the talk page. Please do not feed the trolls.

Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United Kingdom[edit]

I'm not going to edit the article for content because I want to be able to act administratively if warranted. However, I suggest you look again at the material added by the other editor to the lead that you have since moved to the body. I looked at it briefly earlier. Although it's possible I misread it, I believe the report was completed in 2006, which makes it kind of tough to have commissioned it in 2012.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet (bookstore)[edit]

Please do not add or restore to Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to Forbidden Planet (bookstore). Regarding the comment you made in your edit summary, claims such as the one in question need to be accompanied by citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, et al.. It is not the responsibility of editors and admins who uphold those policies like myself to falsify the claims you wish to add to articles. As a veteran editors of close to 13,000 edits since 2006, you should know this. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips (talk)[edit]

Thanks for your constructive efforts to restructure the page. Activist (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bombing of Barcelona may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • He reported that the bombers had glided in at high altitude to avoid being detected by the [[Acoustic location#Military use|acoustic] and electro-magnetic means of detection available at the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Mayfair 11 12.JPG[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Mayfair 11 12.JPG. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heaven (nightclub) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • g-a-y-from-hmv-administrators/] ''Pink News'': Jeremy Joseph buys G-A-Y from HMV administrators]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Lee Rigby[edit]

Thanks for fixing this, I see now I didn't scroll down far enough. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have created a stub about the Disappearance of Jayden Parkinson. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Copa Airlines Flight 201 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (BBC TV series)|Horizon]]'' series as ''Air Crash - The Deadly Puzzle'' on 14 February 1994.<ref>[http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/506127[</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Niels Bohr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Horizon (TV series)
Werner Heisenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Horizon (TV series)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theodor Plievier, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NDR and Ullrich Haupt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United Kingdom[edit]

Why do you insist on your recent edits? The citation simply indicates that crime statistics and their calculation does not show the full story. It's well documented that gun crime in the UK increased in the years following legislation in 1997. Stephenjh (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Theatre 625[edit]

Could you please add you source(s) for the format of the surviving episodes, presumably the "Kaleidoscope" guide.

I have also worked on the [[Play of the Month article recently which probably could also do with some fine tuning as regards the survival issue. Philip Cross (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Planet of the Daleks[edit]

Why is it "self evident"? It's an exceptional claim, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's "self evident" because no b/w episodes were shown on BBC1 after 1969. All the repeats on that channel were colour episodes, and any repeats of b/w episodes were on BBC2. The Planet of the Daleks episode was so exceptional that the mini-documentary preceeding it - about archive recoveries - was designed to explain exactly why BBC1 was showing a b/w programme in primetime. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That is not self evidence. What is your source that says that no b/w episodes were shown on BBC1 after 1969, and that all the repeats on that channel were colour episodes? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You just deleted it from your own page. You are, of course, welcome to identify a b/w story/episode on that list being repeated on BBC1 before 1993. The reality is that there were hardly any terrestrial repeats, so deducing that PotD#3 was the first b/w one since 1969 is hardly rocket science. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If you mean this - I only deleted it because I moved what I assumed was the whole post here, in order to avoid fragmented discussion. That page only gives the channel for some of the repeats, not all; it also fails WP:SPS. Rocket science or not, making deductions which cannot be supported by reliable sources is a WP:NOR violation. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but are you disputing that that is a complete list of UK terrestrial repeats, or that it is clear which channels each story was shown on? You are, of course, welcome to identify which b/w story you think was shown on BBC1. This page also shows that no b/w episodes or stories were repeated on BBC1 before 1993. The only b/w repeats after 1969 and before 1993 were An Unearthly Child, The Krotons, The Time Meddler, and The Mind Robber, all on BBC2. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Gallifreybase also fails WP:SPS. Verifiability and No original research are core policies. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting for you to ID the b/w story/episode shown on BBC1 between 1969 and 1993. I'll not hold my breath. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That is not my WP:BURDEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure it is. Terrestrial repeats were incredibly sparse. Only four b/w stories were repeated between 1969 and 1993, all on BBC2, not BBC1. The GB page confirms it, and you have no evidence that it is inaccurate or omits anything. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which you obviously haven't read. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." In other words, if you want to add the material, it is your job to prove it, not someone else's job to disprove it. G S Palmer (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't add it, someone else did. You've also been presented with two separate webpages showing the same information, i.e. only four b/w stories plus the pilot episode repeated between 1969 and 1993, all of them on BBC2, not BBC1. Do you think two completely separate sources would just make up the exact same information? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't prove anything. One could easily be mirroring the other. G S Palmer (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it shows that the number of terrestrial repeats between 1969 and 1993 before the one in question was actually very small - only 47 titles in fact - and not hard to document. Working out that 42 were all colour, and that none of the remainign five were shown on BBC1 is as easy as 47-42-5=0. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Shoot-to-kill[edit]

Hi. I was just wondering whether this was meant to read "support" or whether it was meant as humour. Scolaire (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One of those days.... Nick Cooper (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you, Nick, for finding a better way of putting the "dominance" aspect in the RNLI article. I am neutral on the topic, but found it difficult to write it in a neutral way. Cheers... Tony Holkham (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wedding anniversary[edit]

I note that you've un-done a number of wedding anniversary changes to revert to a very old edition of pears. Search inside http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pears-Cyclopaedia-2011-2012-Chris-Cook/dp/1846143756/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1401133154&sr=8-4&keywords=pears+cyclopedia for "wedding anniversary", matches the edit's you're undone. It looks like they've changed their mind, but if both this and debretts are saying this is correct, surely the page should reference the current british, not only a 1960's-1970's view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.244.48 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at The Discontinuity Guide. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michael Standing (actor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 1986-07-16/news/mn-19680_1_quickie-divorce Quickie Divorce Costs Spillane's Ex 'Hammer' Profits]]</ref><ref>''AP News'': [http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1986/Writer-s-Ex-Out-To-Take-Him-To-the-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A Foreign Field[edit]

Hi Nick. Thanks for your edit to this article, but do you have a reliable source for changing the date back to the 12th? The article has stated 10th since it was created in 2005, presumably taking the info from IMDB.  —SMALLJIM  09:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Radio Times for 11-17 September 1993. 10:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)