User talk:Uboater

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Uboater! Thank you for your contributions. I am MJ94 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MJ94 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Capt.Richard Williams

A tag has been placed on Capt.Richard Williams, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Capt.Richard Williams

A tag has been placed on Capt.Richard Williams, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of national museums, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nuttah (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Armouries Museum. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. PamD 10:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited List of museums in West Yorkshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clarence Dock (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) 10:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from U-8047 Replica Submarine. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_by_User:Uboater_at_Talk:U-8047_Replica_Submarine.23Connection_with_trust

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you unequivocally withdraw any threat of legal action, you may be unblocked by me or any other admin. But it is unacceptable on the project to attempt to intimidate other users with threats of legal action. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the ofending text 3 times and TransporterMan keeps replacing it. Pehaphs it is for you to stop him and others republishing the ofending text then I shal withdraw any action.Uboater (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does not work that way. There are ways to go about handling disputes, but trying to intimidate via threatening legal action is not one of them. Issuing legal threats is one of the fastest ways to get yourself blocked around here. It's also one of the fastest to get unblocked, if you retract the threat and agree to not make any more. The block is indefinite, in that it has no set end date. This does not mean that it is infinite.

Intimidating other users is simply unacceptable. Wikipedia works by consensus. Allowing one user to intimidate another undermines the foundations of that. WP:NLT has the details of this policy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear TexasAndroid, I find it unbielevable that you concider the thret of civil legal action Intimidation, your comments are not writen without predujice and are mearly helping my cace. As I have told you and TransporterMan quite clearly I find the addede refrence ofencive and it is writen in contempt of the British Laws of Subjudicy. I will however retract the threat of Libel action, however, If the ofending contant is not removed I will instruct my solicitor to apply to the court, in the curently active procedings, to make an order for you to remove it at it is clearly in breach of Subjudicy under british law.Uboater (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but saying that you retract, but then saying that, if you still do not get your way you still plan to pursue legal action, iss not really a withdrawal. We cannot stop you from taking action, but leaving the possibility of such hanging out openly like that continues to have you in violation of the "No Legal Threat" policy. You are basically saying that, unless you get your way, there will be legal consequences. And that is a continuing threat of legal action, and a continuing attempt to intimidate other users.

You need to withdraw it, and make no further mention of it. If at a further date you decide to pursue legal action, that is your choice. But you cannot leave the threat of such action hanging around. You cannot say you withdraw it, and in the next sentence renew it.

On a related note, Wikipedia is in the US, and is thus not generally subject to UK laws. This has come up before with the issue of UK superinjunctions, and that they do not generally apply to Wikipedia. So an order of a British court is likely to have little effect on Wikipedia.

That all said, if you unequivocally withdraw the threat, and do not continue to say things like "If X is not done, I will have my lawyer do Y", then you can be unblocked. And I can point you in the direction of various possible ways to go about getting assistance in the matter. I cannot promise you the outcome you want. The other user may very well be in the right as far as WP policy goes. (I have not examined the specific issue deeply at this time) But at the least I can point you in directions to try to get your desired end that are within the WP system. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It must be so good to feel above the law, once again you are replying not "without predujice", and your comments can be used against you. I'm sure that most judges would not think very highly about them. Well Block me all you want, I dont care. I am the person refaired to in the artical, I was arested, but have not been charged with any offence. The arest was in connection with a company that I worked for some seven years ago and has no connection with the trust, other that the fact that I was on board the boat when aresdted. It is police policy in uk to serch the property where the arest took place. Our Trust collects money to help educate children and is suffering because of the libelus comments in the artical. I havent got the time or patience to study your WP syatem, Simply remove the ofending comments and I will withdraw my legal challange.Uboater (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• No need to study the system since it's quite simple: withdraw the threat if you wish to be unblocked. This is not negotiable. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Hi. I can understand your being disturbed by this material being added to the article, and I can understand you don't want to damage the trust, but Wikipedia simply does not work the way you seem to want. You will not be unblocked under your condition that the material is removed first, as that would simply be giving in to intimidation by legal threat. Also, I've had a look at the quoted sources, and the article is only reproducing what has already been published in the Express and in other UK newspapers and is openly available on the web for all to see - so I honestly don't see what legal prohibition there can actually be (though I'm certainly not a legal expert). There might possibly be grounds for removing the material, but that's a matter for discussion on the Talk page and can really only be addressed once you make an unqualified withdrawal of your legal threat -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Likewise, if you can find additional sources correcting the sources cited so far or providing balance to these sources, we would be most interested in revising the article. Rklawton (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rklawton|talk for talking some sence. I formally withdraw my thret to bring legal action against Wikipedia. The origional story apeared in The Yorkshire Evening Post on 27/01/2012 http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/customs-raid-on-leeds-u-boat-exclusive-1-4185634 All other storys origionated from this. On 28/01/2012 The same newspaper printed a follow up story, confirming that the alegations dated back 7 years and had no connection with the trust, other than the fact that I was on board when arested. Unfortunatly this was only put in print and their is no on line copy to site.

I would be quite happy with the ofending article remaining as long as some ballance is put with it, ie:

Additional media attention was drawn to the boat on January 26th 2012, when Capt. Williams was arrested on board the boat and his personal possessions were searched. This arest was in connection with an alleged £1 million VAT fraud, dating back 7 years, involving false sales of disability equipment. The only connection with U-8047 TRUST, which is just 10 months old, is that Capt. Williams was on board the submarine museum at the time of his arestUboater (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC).

Ok. I'm going to accept that level of retraction. I will unblock you shortly after I post this message. Keep in mind that you have a lot of eyes on you here now, and any return to talk about possible future legal actions on your part are likely to just get you blocked again. New eyes can be good, though. Hopefully some of them can help find a peaceable solution to this at the subject article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, glad we have found a civil solution to this matter.Uboater (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear (talk) Once again this psmD has edeitid this page, removing conent that you and others have aproved. Is is her that caused all the trouble last week and I feel that she is being maliciously and vindictive towards the trust, if she removes anything else their wont be anthing left.Uboater (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a good story and properly sourced, but in her view, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I still cannot get the citations corect on the page, pehaphs TexasAndroid could help?

Editing

Please take the trouble to learn (eg by looking at WP:HELP and, if that fails, asking at the WP:Help desk) how to add tags etc in Wikipedia, rather than adding your own "[NO CITE]" formulation. If you make an edit, and use "Preview", and see that it does not have the same effect as in other articles you have seen, then Cancel the edit rather than leaving non-standard comments in an encyclopedia article. Your addition of these tags, after your comments on my talk page could be taken to be WP:POINTish behaviour: "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", as your previous editing history has not shown any interest in the quality of other articles than U-8047 Replica Submarine.

I have reverted your edits and added the standard tag to indicate a section lacking references in each case. PamD 15:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering he owns the Submarine, I think his point in editing it is justified. He's going to have more knowledge of it than anyone on here, you included. Russ Jericho (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the British Prime Minister's office has more knowledge about the British Prime Minister than we do, but that doesn't mean we let the British Prime Minister's office decide what should go in our article about David Cameron. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want factual information on Mr. Cameron, you'd go to Mr. Cameron for it. My point is this, anything found on here should always come from the "horse's mouth", surely? You don't want information from the monkey, you'd want it from the organ grinder. You're not going to get a more factual source on this article from anyone other than [[User:Uboater|Uboater]. As long as the article is unbiased, that should be it. Russ Jericho (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We would not go to Cameron for it in Wikipedia, as it would be original research forbidden by the verifiability policy. As that policy says, "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources..." (emphasis added). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if these so-called "published sources" are libellous and/or misinformed? I think you misunderstand what I wrote previously; any sources Wikipedia obtain should always come directly or indirectly from the topic of discussion? Published or otherwise? Russ Jericho (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sadly Russ, these mupets don not always follow the truth, they pick and chose who's web sites are ok to use as citations. The Royal Armouries, (my personal bug bare) is a absolute load of tosh written by morons who think that just because they can spell are better the others. It is cited by some photo's, which are out of date and ref's from theit website, which is ok because they are a large museum with the queen as patron. Sadly their head man has recently been suspended on allegations of deception and fraud, but PamD dosent try and add it to their page like she does to mine.Uboater (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Russ Jericho: Though the answer is considerably more complicated than this, the short answer is yes. As it also says in the verifiability policy, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia..." The sentence you have reinserted is not verifiable in the source which you added, please read the policy and then remove it. Frankly, the better thing would be to remove the preceding bit about Cyril Howarth since its inclusion really violates WP:UNDUE to begin with and removing it would avoid the necessity of having to explain it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There's an "h" in my surname. This has been corrected. No verified source required... Russ Jericho (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright query

If the file File:Captain Williams.jpeg is your "own work", then (a) why is it attributed on your user page as "© Bruce Adams/Daily Mail", and (b) did you take it with a self-timer or something, as it's remarkably clear and composed for a self-portrait? PamD 09:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Who says it's my own work. If I have somwhere then it was in mistake, the photo was published in the dayly mail some time ago and Bruce Adams sent me coppies and gave me permition to use them.Uboater (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You said it yourself when you uploaded the image on 5 November 2011. PamD 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Captain Williams.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Captain Williams.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PamD 11:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK if you are not happy delete it in fact Delete the whole Fucking thing. You the most Fustrating, Iritaiting Interfeering Nosy Cunt I have Ever come Across. In Fact I'll Delete the Fucking things MYSELF save the the trouble.Uboater (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)