User talk:Shritwod

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

Susan Etok page[edit]

You have gone through the article that I wrote about Susan Etok removing credible references and trying to get the page deleted. Your efforts have been noted by other editors as well to the point that I am convinced that you have a vested interest in this article because you are a Michael Jackson fan. Your comments in the article for deletion section seem full of malice.

I do not know and have not met Dr Etok, I wrote this article because I live in the town that she is from and she is always in the local papers and local news. Most recently last week.

I have spent alot of time researching this article and will not have my work destroyed because you have a grudge against the person in the article.

You have also made some comments in the article for deletion section about the subject in the article that could land you in legal hot water, but that is not of my concern.

Lola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talkcontribs) 10:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are nothing to do with Ms Etok, then how come you are in possession of a studio-quality photograph of her? That seems rather odd. Shritwod (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Shritwood, I am not sure what is wrong with you but you have some obssession with this lady that us not healthy. Why I have a studio quality picture of this lady because I downloaded it from her website with permission on no copyright restrictions. What has that got to do with anything? Objectivity is key here and you are not being objective. Anyone would think that you were racist or a Michael Jackson fan. You are not committed to getting accurate articles out there, you are hellbent on trying to ruin people's reputation. As an editor, you shouldn't be working on this article because it is clear that you know or have been involved with this woman. Your reaction is far too emotional to be one based on good editing and accuracy. Respect77 13:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talkcontribs)

You claim in the copyright details that you are the copyright owner. You must therefore know the subject, or you must be make a false assertion about ownership. End of discussion. Shritwod (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am the copyright owner of the photo because I own the company that took her photographs. I am not the photographer and I have never spoken to or met the woman personally. We still ask for permission to use photos - it is courtesy!

So you own Paul William Photography? I am surprised that it has more than one person working for it. That should be very easy to verify. Oddly though, you said that you downloaded it from her web site. Now you say that an employee took the photograph. Perhaps you should get the details straight in your head. Shritwod (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest. Please verify the source of the photo.....Respect77 13:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talkcontribs)

"England, UK" vs "England"[edit]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? on a topic you have recently discussed elsewhere. Please have your say if you wish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Arromanches-mulberry-1.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) 12:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Samsung GT-M7500 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:
  • com/samsung-night-effect-review-09x02x25.htm Mobile Gazette - Samsung Night Effect Review]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Can you please tell me why you have nominated this page for deletion?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoninIceland (talkcontribs) 19:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Counties[edit]

They are indeed accurate to the place where the people were born. Anyone born in Birmingham before 1974 was born in Warwickshire. This is indisputable. Anyone born in Munich in 1985 was born in West Germany. To take your view to the logical extreme, you might as well say King Harold was born in East Sussex, Immanuel Kant was born in the Russian Federation, or that Abraham was Iraqi. None of them were, obviously, so why hold different standards for people born in the 20th century? Where being "helpful" diverges from accuracy, I side with accuracy. JamKaftan (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we are not dealing with historical figures, we are dealing with contemporary ones. The addition of the counties in many cases does not add value and it does not seem to fit in with the WP:UKPLACE guidelines. Shritwod (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Davidson (speaker)[edit]

Most of the edits that have been made by moderators has not been to correct neutral tone issues, but rather the mass cutting of information. I understand perfectly fine if there are issues with neutrality, however I have sought to substantiate all of the claims on the article with some sort of citation or another. Many hours have been put into researching the necessary citations, and I would appreciate if the concerned moderators would not remove the properly cited information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C3po2398 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)