Why are you supporting this Dongiago person? He is trying to thwart me every way he can. The fact is that using the term "original research" means that I am lying. The whole concept if original research is pathetic. A relative of mine put some info up on his own article and was accused of "original research". To say that some US newspaper reporter is the only one who tells the truth is plain crazy in my view. The Dongiago only accepts "verifiable sources". What the hell does that mean??? It means that no one can write anything! Policemen like him make the writing oif anything impossible. He is just playing games, and to be frank, it is doing my head in. Wallie (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that. I was familiar with alternate spellings (humor=humour) and jargon (apartment=flat), but was unaware of that aspect of linguistic differences. Thanks for the information. :-) Nightscream (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is where I go. When you go there, first use the search engine to see if there have already been discussions on the source in question. If not, or if you feel there was not a clear consensus, or have a more specific permutation of the source to ask about, begin a new discussion, and remember to mention not only the source, but the article and/or information for which you wish to cite it. The editors there don't just want to be asked about a source; they want it to be specified what you're using it for. That board's search engine yields a few past discussions on Emporis, so I would start there. Hope that helps.! Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I seem not to be making edits correctly or not recording sources correctly.
I substituted Nenthead, Cumbria for Flash, Staffordshire as the highest village in England.
The evidence or source for this is the published Ordnance Survey 50 metre DEM (digital elevation model) which I have consulted.
The evidence for the Flash claim cites [quote] Flash claims to be the highest village in England. In 2007 the claim was upheld by the BBC (actually The One Show), which settled a dispute with its rival claimant, Wanlockhead in Dumfries and Galloway. The Ordnance Survey (actually Starnet Geomatics) measured the highest house in each village and Flash was higher.
Neither the BBC nor Ordnance survey considered Nenthead therefore their work was fundamentally flawed.
I have given figures for the highest property in Nenthead within the defined village limits, based on highway signage. There are other higher properties but which are arguably outside of the village. The Ordnance Survey 50m DEM which I have referred to is a recognised published source.
Nenthead has made the claim several times, however consulting a map and interpreting which settlement counts and is highest etc. is WP:OR. You would need to find a source more reliable than the BBC and the Guiness world Records that claims Nenthead as the highest.SPACKlick (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. It is the claim by Flash which is WP:OR. They only compared two places and did not include Nenthead in their assessment. I have spoken directly to Guiness World Records and they have said that they do not maintain a record of the highest village in Britain and have no interest in it. The 2007 work was not done by Ordnance Survey, so both the sources quoted for Flash are false. Reference to the official OS Mapping constitutes a reliable published source and has more authority than either of those false claims. The difference in level is significant enough to put the matter beyond doubt. (Asheshouse (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)).
Beyond doubt in your opinion. But do you have a source that states that? For Flash as the highest village a quick google finds the telegraph Peak district info the independent Macclesfield Express all in favour of Flash. Adding Nenthead to the google search finds Visit cumbria and the independent 
Compare the independent articles carefully, the one in favour of Flash is newer and states;
Both villages claim - falsely - to be England's highest, at around 1,450ft,
although Nenthead has rather sneakily attempted to raise the bar by
claiming that houses situated further up the hill are part of the village.
until you can present a source to counter this, your claim is unsourced and constitutes WP:ORSPACKlick (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I have always hesitated to accept newspaper articles as a reliable source. Since you accept the latest Independent article I would quote;
Situated atop what's known locally as "God's Treasure House", Wanlockhead is a mere
13ft nearer heaven than Flash in Staffordshire. It's in the Uplands rather than the
Highlands, tucked away in the Lowther Hills of Dumfries and Galloway, on a block of
rock containing lead, zinc, copper, silver and some of the purest gold on earth.
Perhaps the only correct position would be acknowledge that there is no agreement on the matter.
Certainly there isn't consensus and noting that there is dispute would be worthwhile. That said OS clearly found that Flash was 102feet higher than Wanlockhead;
Flash leapt up in height 40ft to 1558ft, while Wanlockhead, with a population of 156,
was downgraded to a meagre 1456ft - much to the chagrin of the Scots.
Nenthead only claims to be 1500feet leaving it 58 short of Flash. Flash is the best supported answer. SPACKlick (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC) [Also note I edited your formatting for ease of reading]
This is a key point from the recent BBC/OS work. The criteria for assessment was agreed, here quoted from the Flash, Stafordshire wiki entry;
The Ordnance Survey measured the highest house in each village and Flash was higher
Using the same criteria at Nenthead gives 1580ft (482m). Noting another comment above.
Both villages claim - falsely - to be England's highest, at around 1,450ft,
although Nenthead has rather sneakily attempted to raise the bar by
claiming that houses situated further up the hill are part of the village.
Nenthead has not "raised the bar" simply applied the same rule used by others. The house at 1580ft is adjacent to the main road through the village (A689) and inside the village limits defined by the highway village sign. I would suggest that reference to the OS 50m DTM is a reliable independent source. No interpretation involved. You just read off the numbers. (Asheshouse (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)).
Evidently it does require interpretation or everyone would get the same answer. Those houses are evidently not considered by the independent reporter to be part of the village. You are simply misunderstanding what constitutes WP:OR unless you can find a source where somebody explicitly says nenthead is the highest village and gain consensus on the talk page it is inappropriate to put that in the articles. In terms of the interpretation, which house would you say was the highest house within the village of nenthead? Would it be one on Church Lane or one on National Route 7 (as google calls it)? How could you easily judge? It would be personal interpretation and this would make an elevation difference of nearly 30m. SPACKlick (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The village limits are decided by the highways authority, so no interpretation required. They indicate it by the positioning of the village signs and speed limits. Those on the A689 (NR7) are shown here http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/Image1_zpsb91e0807.jpg The highest house is the prominent one on the left. I cannot comment on what may have been in the mind of the Independent Reporter when, or if, they visited Nenthead. (Asheshouse (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)).
Again you've made an interpretation that a) the highways authority is definitively correct and B that house falls within a boundary marked only by points. Find a reliable source that actually makes the claim or the claim has no place on wikipedia SPACKlick (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that English Hertitage is a reliable source and more reliable and authoritative than the general press.
Alston and Nenthead are both sited on a considerable gradient, Alston lies at between 265 and 330 metres
above sea level,allowing it to claim to be the highest market town in England (an assertion disputed by
Buxton, Derbyshire), Garrigill is at about 345 metres and Nenthead at between 430 and 475 metres, giving
Nenthead the accolade of being the highest village in England and having the highest parish church.
English Heritage being a national body of considerable academic authority may be considered a highly credible source. (Asheshouse (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).
Excellent, now we have competing sources. That is a discussion for the talk page to garner consensus as it is now a disputed source. Put the two sources there and see what people say. SPACKlick (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry -- I don't understand what is being asked. Which "talk page"? Which two sources? I really do not know how to progress this matter.(Asheshouse (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).
Ah sorry, each article has its own talk page for discussing just this sort of disagreement within sources, I've summarised the situatuion with Nenthead vs Flash []. Jump in and have a look. SPACKlick (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC) ‘‘‘=References’‘‘=
Hi - although it's not me making the edits adding the Pitchfork review of Pink Moon, technically speaking the people doing it are correct that the link gives the album 10/10. The overall score of 8.5 is for the Tuck Box box set as a whole, but if you look underneath the album cover they also give individual scores for each of the five albums included in the box set, which give the overall average of 8.5 (8.6 actually, but I'm not going to argue with Pitchfork's maths). Whether a score taken from part of a box set rather than the individual album should be included in the reviews is another matter... Richard3120 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I corrected the article to the one I think you wanted to protect? You must report the right page and look at the capitalization of letter to make sure it is correct. QED237(talk) 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. There is no good idea to protect pages against a single editors. A page protection is for pages being vandalized by many IP's and were it is to hard to block all IP's. In the cases you reported it is a single IP user and in those cases you should warn the user on their talkpage and report them to WP:AIV. QED237(talk) 15:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That is why your requests has been declined. QED237(talk) 15:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing the "Marriage Penalty" page. Look at the sources I cited if you do not understand the issue. Do not delete text and references just because you don't understand it. I will report your vandalism if you don't stop it. 15:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk)
This is clearly a content dispute and not vandalism. SPACKlick has shown interest in discussing this so you should discuss instead of making this threats. Failing to discuss from either part and I will report you. QED237(talk) 16:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Please advise me on why you changed my edits to the NorthWestern Energy page. What can I do to provide verifiable content (e.g., the correct logo). Also some of the news was close to 10 years old so what is the best way to update the information without being un-done. Thanks for getting back to me. SSMalee (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)SSMalee
* adding two orphaned references
* Changing the Logo, no reason given
* changing their operational paramaters in the infobox with no provided source
* Removed pretty much the whole article which has sources.
If you'd like to come to the talk page and discuss those changes one by one, I'm sure we can improve the artice SPACKlick (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello SPACKlick, Thanks for getting back to me. As an employee of NorthWestern Energy here are some of my responses: -- I changed the logo because the one currently posted applies to a company that no longer exists. In 2003, NorthWestern Energy, (the company that used the globe as an O in the logo) filed for restructuring protection. In 15 months, a newly formed and solid company emerged. Since it was a new company, we retained the name but changed the logo by removing the globe. From a branding issue, we really want to update logo. -- I updted all the company information in the sidebar to reflect the exact information the company regurlarly files with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). The summary statements are our formal statements and we updte the information and file it with the SEC at least annually. -- I deleted the information under the Controversial section because the lawsuits related to the 2005 explosion were settled several years ago. NorthWestern Energy worked in good faith and as quickly as possible to resolve the many lawsuits as a result of the unfortunate incident in Bozeman; however, the case is closed and is far from the only lawsuit we deal with daily. By mentioning only one lawsuit, it paints an incomplete, outadated and inaccurate picture. -- Please tell me how to cit information I poste. Can I use company press releases? Obviously, you did not like the reference to the SEC documents either. What do you consider objective and verifiable references? -- I could post some more current information about NorthWestern Energy, but I really want to avoid this delete-repost game.
Thanks for getting back to me. 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
If you can find some primary sources (press releases/company website etc.) and some secondary sources (reliable news outlets reporting the reformation of the company) I'll help work out sources but essentially you use < ref > < /ref > tags around the reference that refers to the piece of information in each sentence, things in the lead and infobox should be within the main article. SPACKlick (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
This demographic information that I have contributed to this entry is FAR better sourced than the rest of the article. One quarter of Americans have zero white lineage. But if you look at the general assembly photo I sourced, you will see that the OPC is clearly a white denomination. The OPC once even said so themselves, but they have failed to even inquire into this issue since the 1970s.
The source you are using does not make the statements you are making, you are interpreting them from the sources, this is a violation of WP's policies. Either find sources making the claims you have put in the article or do not put them in the article.
Additionally, not having a source for a census is not the same as having a source for no census. Your edits, in totality constitute WP:OR and thus violate WP's Policies.SPACKlick (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you advised 188.8.131.52 not to remove warnings from their talk page. That actually is allowed - see WP:OWNTALK for details. Users are not permitted to remove some templates though, such as shared IP notice (which I restored) and declined unblock notices whilst the user was still blocked. --k6ka’‘‘(talk | contribs) 12:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we've all done that at some point or other. Basically we assume that they've read any warnings that they remove. Obviously there are some notices that can be restored such as the ones K6ka mentioned.’‘‘Green Giant (talk)‘‘‘13:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
As a note in case this becomes relevant later. The "Edit war" is two reverts of an edit to Oscar Pistorius as I believe the charge being placed by HelenOnline violates BLP. Per BRD I reverted her Bold change and discussed on the talk page. Most sources call it one thing and further discussion is ongoing there. SPACKlick (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — xaosfluxTalk 11:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the new lede. I've finalized adding citations and wordsmithing the text on the Talk page. Please do a final review and proceed to update the article proper. Should be an easy copy/paste job. Mihaister (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that I'll come have a shufti. SPACKlick (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the good Doc reverted to the old lede, because the new one had only 2 paragraphs. I've broken the one on the Talk page into 3 paragraphs, so let's try again. Mihaister (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Dreadstar☥ 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind :) I must say I was impressed with the way you handled the summary of everyone's position, and your comments about the previous such summary. Good luck for the future :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious about giving Bretonbanquet a barnstar for civility during the DRN? Ok, the user was civil in concession, but this  and this , coming from that same DRN, don't quite demonstrate much civility. And why did you give only that particular user such a barnstar? I would think that GyaroMaguus, Burgring and maybe even Twirlypen are even more entitled to receive such a barnstar. Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I tend only to give the barnstars to people who I disagreed with, it's a lot less fair to judge people who you are in agreement with as you almost always see them in a more positive light. I also particularly noted Breton because I was uncivil towards him in places and he didn't get baited by it. The first diff you posted was borderline uncivil but was far less snarky than I'd have been in his position and the second diff wasn't uncivil at all. Now GyaroMaguus was certainly civil and if any of those disputing with him felt civil enough for a barnstar then i'd wholly support that. SPACKlick (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You closed the discussion, but i'm not sure a clear concensus was reached for Alien. In fact, when i count, i reach the opposite conclusion. Pro Xenomorph: Urammar, Nytemyre, 184.108.40.206, NinjaRobotPirate, ミーラー強斗武, me (PizzaMan) Pro Alien: Serendipodous, Lagrange613, Rhododendrites, McGeddon That's a 6 to 4 majority for Xenomorph. Just because those four editors keep replying to every point made pro Xenomorph until other editors are done with it and move on, that doesn't make them right.PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@PizzaMan:: Per WP:ConsensusConsensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I looked at the strength of the case rathter than a simple tally of pro and con editors. I did not feel a compelling case had been made for Xenomorph as the common name, which surprised me because in my social circles it is referred to as the Xenomorph, but we're geeks and personal usage doesn't define common names. If you feel I closed it inappropriately please see here for the process for dispute. SPACKlick (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care much for the Alien franchise, i just saw the RfC and gave my opinion that it's not right for any franchise to claim the generic word "Alien". I've had a discouraging amount of WP: policies thrown against me when i once dared to disagree with the majority on another topic, so i just wanted to point it to you that you went by the minority opinion when closing the RfC. I'll leave it up to you if this was a correct decision. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)