User talk:RogerGLewis

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Hi Real Libs, I'm getting the hang of this, communicating is confusing as there isn't a reply button so to speak so it's guess work as to where to put questions suggestions etc, for me at this stage anyway. How would you suggest I put my suggestions for the Byrdland page, I'm all for consensus and I'm happy to draft things and put them in the talk section before showing them the light of day on the actual page.The links thing is open to a wide range of interpretations, a citation on manufacturing numbers and also an actual list of players citing locations where the proof in an actual photograph can be found would seem a longwinded way of achieving the effect of just posting a link to a location within which the information can be found anyway. I have read the discussion on inclusionist and deletionist philosophies with the link to the article posted in your own article, I found it very interesting. My objective in this is really just to get the Byrdland guitar properly recognised as the groundbreaking instrument it actualy was and still is. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gibson Byrdland links et-al

Hi I am just getting used to the lie of the land around here. On the Byrdland Thread I have posted what I would say are useful additions to the information on that instrument. The Gibson Players list is a link and a poor one in terms of reference to the Byrdland. What is the problem do you think with the links I have posted? I collect guitars and have been researching the Byrdland model for over a year now. I own a vintage model and would like to see this section of the Wiki doing justice to the guitar. There are a number of edits I would suggest to the main article which is one dimensional in many respects relying mostly on the one source book, there is no reference to the 11th edition of the blue book or any edition of the blue book for that matter a material shortcoming in relation to any rare vintage instrument, even a cursory look at the shipping figures I posted a link to would show that the Byrdland is a rare and yet influential instrument. How does one discuss edits I do think there is rather a lot to discuss before this entry could be said to be satisfactry. I realise that Wikepedia is more than just a collection of links it does seem to me that such a big section of this entry relies on a link and an unimformitive one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing here but having just reviewed the post above entitled a request, I am starting to form the opinion that there is some pretty arbitrary and undemocratic editing going on in here. I am looking to enter into a sensible discussion as to how I might collaborate in getting the Entry for the Gibson Byrdland into a shape that actually communicates the importance of the Byrdland model in the development of the thin line guitar. If Wikipedia is to be other than a collection of links it should also be less than the one dimensional precis of one old source book. RogerGLewis (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) My intention is to restore the links I have made or at least provide the list of notable players I have compiled within the body of the article. All sources of players are actually accredited to their source as are the sources of the photographs of the players with their instruments where I have them. This represents 4 months work alone. The shipping figures I mentioned should also be placed in the article to give context to the influence of the byrdland in relation to the numbers actually manufactured. The raw data speaks for itself as represented in the link, but if to get the information into the article I am happy to extract the apposite numbers . There is an important article published by George Gruhn on the Byrdland a world renowned expert on vintage and rare guitars and the history of the instrument, that there is no reference to this article is a material shortcoming, in my opinion, of the entry as it stands. I am reminded of the old saying about those living in glass houses not throwing stones. RogerGLewis (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I have now slept on this and re-read what i have said above and reflected on the rules/suggestions as to what appropriate links to a subject/entry should be. A link that clarifies a point or supports a statement should be considered as valid. The existing link in this article to notable players leads to a generic list of endorsed gibson players of all of their models, the link I have posted whilst it links to a forum it is the moderated forum of the Gibson company in the Hollow and semi hollow body section of the forum. The Gibson forum is a valuable source of information on all things to do with Gibson models as a source it is useful and as a link re-enforcing an already weak link it would seem to me to add something to the article.WIth respect to the link to shipping figures the information on this site is extremely well researched and is the best representation I have come across of all shipping figures for Gibson guitars. A large amount of interest in Gibson guitars has been generated by the famous 1959 and 1960 Les Paul Standard model which have exchanged hands for $1,000,000 plus privately and at auction, prices in excess of $500,000 are routine. 1278 Les Paul Standards were shipped in 59/60. Now consider the Byrdland first production run up to 1969 when from 1955 through to 1969 only 1147 were ever made the largest production/shipping run being in 1968 when 198 were shipped. This sort of information is available by looking at the sources I have suggested as a link. The current precised entry looking at the history going way back has become very sparce but does not communicate the substance of this instrument either by example or by reference, On the above basis I propose to re-instate the links I suggest today and would ask that should other contributors wish to add a further piece within the main article contextualising the links, could we exchange messages and decide what would be appropriate. I would equally accept that some explanation ahead of the links could help to clarify what direction those links lead. There really isn't a condensed source of information on the web for the Gibson Byrdland and I am excited that Wikipedia at least has the opportunity to provide a window into the very great history of this instrument a lot of younger guitarists I think seem to have the impression it's just something that Ted Nugent plays?RogerGLewis (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See below for the offending links. - RogerGLewis (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you may have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia, at Anthony Wilson. Please do not add such material without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The text you added to the page came from http://www.jazzblues.org/news.php?viewStory=264 srushe (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What am I doing talking to a robot. I actually removed this myself realising it was probably not good to cut and paste I added a line of text however mentioning that Anthony Wilson notably played and owns a late 50's Gibson Byrdland quite an important part of his sound particularly with Diane Krall her other well known accompiansit Russel malone also used a Byrdland when with Ms Krall. In all honesty this really is all in all a rather frustrating place to try to contribute . It's hardly suprising that it has a reputation for wild innaccuracy!RogerGLewis (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Entries

There are a few noteable ommisions from the list of Gibson Players, I would like to nominate a few for consideration where does one initiate the process of offering up worthy entrants for such saintification?RogerGLewis (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a nomination process. If an entry satisfies the criteria of the lead-in they can be added. Some IP added Kenny Burrell... with no citations from reliable sources.. which are a must or else they are removed. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Hello libs, that was a guy from the gibson forums called Robert Nahaum he's from Australia and something of an expert on L5's and other Gibson Archtops and Jazz players,at least it was probably Robert he also nominated George Benson who played an L5 and there is a link to George benson in the Wilkipedia it is out of date in that it hasn't recorded his death several years ago. George Benson is generally accepted as one of the greatest jazz players of all time his collection of guitars was sold by Skinners of Boston last Spring I think it was the L5 which I think once belonged to Wes Montgomery sold for £41,000. Citations to reliable sources is an interesting one is the extant entry on George Benson considered reliable. What is the citation for KT Tunstall as an example?I'm sure that we will all get the hang of this eventually, it would be nice to be able to view entries without some obvious jarring omissions. One of the other Gibson Forum people mentioned Mary Ford who played Guitar with Les Paul, a gibson acoustic and a les paul when they came out part of the Les Pauls initial popularity was based on Mary Fords and Les Pauls celebruity in the US, Mary Ford really should be on the list there are plenty of others. Mike Bloomfield is a featured guitarist on the Gibson site this week with a sig model Les Paiul, Trini Lopez has a signature Gibson Model that alone would seem to qualify under the three headings. Thanks for your continuing input it is much appreciated. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Entries like that are great. But they need citations. Editor "experts" are = WP:NOR and fail WP:RS. Newspapers, magazines and books can all be cited. When it is a specific instrument... that instrument needs to be detailed in order to show "notability". Attempts have been made to add Bloomfield already... his inclusion would be superb. (he is on the Tele player list) But the entries did not have valid refs. Same for Lopez... another great addition (gloriously omitted up to now for lacking refs). An new entry should never just say "X played a 19XX X model". There are already too many of those that still need cleanup or removal. IF you want to see an excellent entry on a notable player list... go to the List of Stratocaster players and read the Rory Gallagher entry. Great wording. Quotes (cited quotes) are excellent additions. For this page most of the entries are still sparse (the Les Paul one being a good example) At the same time there are already articles for each specific model so we can't have too much duplication of content. The Jimmy Page and Keith Richards entries on this page are decent. The Billy gibbons entry is a good example of a shorter one. Again... quotes really help flesh out an entry. Leslie West is associated closely with the LP Junior. A quote from him about the little orphan would be welcome. Same for Johnny Winter and his long devotion to the Firebird. Does anyone use a 135 with more dedication than Thorogood?... not too many in the rock world. But his entry just says "uses an ES-135". *Sigh*... a continual work in progress. Just "using" a model doesn't cut it. We need to emphasise "notability". with citations... just as the article lead-in paragraph states (there are also some hidden rules on the page that are viewable when the edit box is clicked) Notable Gibson players doesn't just cover guitars either. The Achilles heel of the entire article is the lack of mandolin and banjo players. A few are included. A few more would balance the article out. Everyone and his dog has played a Les Paul. If the lead-in is followed it makes it easier to clear the "users" from the "notable users" I have read a few of the posts on the Gibson forum to your newly opened discussion. None of the editors "got it right" as none seemed to understand the strict criteria of the lead-in. And one post was full of information that was just flat out wrong. The List of Telecaster players is a good example of a notable player list. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks real libs, I'll take all of that constructive advice on board and set about preparing citations etc in line with the model examples of Billy Gibbons and Rory Gallagher (one of my particular favourites, so will enjoy reading that anyhow) On the Mando and Banjo front I'll e-mail a few of the guys into those instruments and see if I can drum up a bit of interest for them to mobilise their expertise in this direction. Thanks again RogerGLewis (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't worth the effort

Probably the most unhelpful environmnet I've ever encountered, I'm out of here.RogerGLewis (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

'Bye! Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you, it's been interesting, a kind of reverse learning exerience.86.146.42.147 (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

After 12 Years I think its actually got worse here on Wikippedia. RogerGLewis (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Answers to questions

I did not say that anyone did not deserve an article. If a subject passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC they can have an article created on Wikipedia... feel free to create any article you wish. But remember that the project has several policies in place (like WP:BIO and [[WP:MUSIC) to keep the project free of NN article subjects. Unless an article already exists... they cannot be added to the Gibson list (or any other player list for that matter) As for Bennett/Benson. Their inclusion would be valid. But the worded entry must show detail for use + notability of use. Your entry for George Benson said "Great Jazz player"... and thats it. Said nothing about the L5... nothing about its previous owner... nothing about its auction sale.... nothing. As for Bennett... the entry capitalised the word white???... included the word Gibson?? in front of Byrdland (its a Gibson player article so identifying models as "Gibson" is redundant... thats written in the lead-in hidden text and also covered extensively on the talk page) + again... did not distinguish why he was notable for the Byrdland use. The list would benefit from having both entries if they were written properly and not added in a writing style of a grade 3 book report. "Great jazz player"... any 8 year could write that. The Benson reference has lots of information that could be compiled into a decent entry... instead the entry was a sparce 3 words that said nothing. The content of the Bennett link is simply a Wikipedia mirror site which fails policy WP:RS and cannot be used. References must pass WP:RS and must support the notability criteria for inclusion. Hope that helps

Frankly libs charecterising the addition of a few words as the writing style of an 8 year old is just silly. The Benson article already existed that establishes him as a great jazz player, his use of an L5 is proven in the Skinners auction catalogue which was posted as a link, I thought the double provenance point with the link to another noteable Gibson Player Wes Montgomery was particularly nice. Wayne Bennett is a noteable guitar player his byrdalnd was a present from BB King, according to his daughter. BB King and Bobby Bland have guest appeared together countless times, a lot of great Jazz ad Blues players pay tribute to Bennett. BY definition a lot of noteable Byrdland players will not be well known or famous, today even if they were back in the day which wouldn't be necessary to make them noteable, but they are noteable to their peer group and their style of playing will have influenced many other artists. On the Bennett entry to the list I think the evidence is there but several links to several places cross referenced back to the Wiki article if they exist is quite a lot of work. The Donna Stoneman edit I think was particularly harsh as well, I wanted to Add Mary Ford as well I haven't checked if theres an article for her yet. I don't see how an obviously incomplete and deficient list can get featured status just because all of the citations and links cross check the extreme example of that would be one perfectly constructed entry linked to an article and so on but the fact would remain that a list with obvious ommisions shouldn't be given any sort of featured status it should only be featured in a section of lists with lots more work needed.RogerGLewis (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some important guidelines

• WP:PEACOCK
• WP:NPOV

Please read these carefully so you can see why we have done what we have done.

Reading the other guidelines might come in handy, too.

Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the notification Bondegezou who has posted the other endorsements if not supporters of the other candidates in some if not all the cases ? The list of endorsements for Shahrar Ali for instance is very short on a lot of heavy weight endorsements I added David Malone to the list of his endorsers David also endorses Andrew Cooperboth of whom can not be elected yet David makes an endorsement of both. claiming conflict of interest in poliitical campaigns seems to me mired in problems, singling me out appeals to my well developed sense of absurdity, but thats a matter for others.I will continue looking at the other contributions to point out the errors and inconsitencies in applying standards of policy. Meanwhile I will follow the process with interest.RogerGLewis (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, most of the endorsements added have been by regular Wikipedia editors who are interested in politics. But it doesn't matter who initially added material: what matters is whether the community agrees that the material is appropriate. Other endorsements have been retained in the article because other editors have been satisfied the material satisfies basic Wikipedia standards.

In your case, you appear to have identified yourself not merely as someone who wants to see Malone win -- which I would not see as a conflict of interest -- but as someone actively working with the Malone campaign. That clearly comes under WP:COI rules.

The addition of information on further endorsements, where sufficiently notable and well sourced, would be very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with sources being proven and reliable regardless of who posts, sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. Application in this case is not being consistent. On Notability there are several problems with the Wikipedia Page idea and also the bar would apply differently say at Local elections to National ones. The Green Party is a Small all beit growing party with a 60,000 membership the only Greens of National Noteriety are Caroline and a lesser extent Natalie. In a grass roots policy up party like the greens grass roots local level positions are very important and noteworthy, also with the lack of media interest in the greens generally and in this leadership contest in particular it is arguable that all the green candidates in this election fall at the first hurdle when it comes to Being noteworthy in the snese of Green Party leadership most people on the street would be unable to name any of the candidates and even more would be ignorant that there is any contest at all. All that said I appreciate your concerns which you quite rightly voice regarding my own impartiality and I echo those concerns on other entries as well which are remarkable self referential and unsupported by any measure set to avoid circular reference. I have linked to the actual Face book accounts of Davids three endorsements by folk holding official green party positions and suggested a link to Ian Frasers Glasgow herald profile where he was a fairly recent Business Editor. RogerGLewis (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the Greens are a more minor party, so there are fewer notable figures associated with the party (although the Lucas/Bartley campaign has managed to attract a fair few). The solution to that, however, should not be to throw away standard practice. If the Greens are a lesser party, they can expect less coverage in Wikipedia, as per WP:DUE. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to bend the rules to compensate for the Greens minor status and lack of media coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a stubb article of marginal interest out side of the Green Party, within the green party David Malone and other officials of the green party represent a sub set related to the content of this article and internal green party politics. To do justice to the actual reference elctorate in this leadership election for disinterested people looking for some idea of what historically happened in the Green Leadership Election of 2016 surely it is the Green party folk who put together information concerning who is supporting who and who is a ranking influencer, that is relevant. For stub articles this guidance must I think apply in this case. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. I have also drawn attention to the misleading link at link 3 to the 2012 party constitution. This Link is wholly misleading to an article on the Leadership when section 8 related to leadership and executive matters was substantailly changed so as to render the 2012 constitution meaningless for the purposes of this leadership election.

I will encourage other candidates and their supporters to try and improve the article further , your efforts are appreciated Bondegezoutalk even though we have some differences of interpretation hopefully some other editors can chip in and improve things as I think we both want that. I am very concerned that Wikipedia should be as good as it can be and would not want to detract from its quality in any way.18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

I note with interest and thank Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC [6] for this input regarding the charge of conflict of interest. ″With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage″. - Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC RogerGLewis (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard issue

I'm making exactly the same comment here as I did for the other editor. If you want to continue the COI issue, please do so at the COI Noticeboard, not my talkpage. Thanks. - Brianhe (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood and I apologise Brianhe, I will re post my comment here for the benefit of Bondegezou Bondegezou

Hello, I am happy to clarify any specific questions. I would point out there is a difference between being interested and having a conflict of interest the distinction is I think clearly seen from what I have already said and my conduct also bears out the fact that no evidence points to a conflict of interest being evident or indeed latent by making inappropriate or biased edits. I have reviewed the relevant policies posted by others, as well as guidance for stub articles and there is no basis , evidence or indeed truth in characterising my editing of this Article as tainted by conflict of Interest. In political matters as I have already stated conflicts of interest are an absurd notion in that we all have our own allegiance. My own allegiances here are not party political or Partisan they are ideological, as I have explained I am a monetary reform activist and support the Green Policy 2015 manifesto commitments on Monetary reform and universal INCOME. I am actually if I must be catagorised an Eco Anarchist and the electoral processes of State election systems require me to hold my nose in becoming involved. As a stoic and pragmatic philosopher i do actually have a commitment to praxis of seeking fundamental changes to the economic system particularly Money creation and it is this which leads me to admire and support some green party political actors more than others including the Three I have dubbed #TheGreenPistols , but as long as the green party manifesto policy policy EC661 ´´The Green Party believes that, as the means of exchanging goods and services, the stock of money is a vital common resource which should be managed in the public interest. Yet only 3% of our money supply currently exists in the form of notes and coins issued by the Government or the Bank of England. 97% of the money circulating in the economy takes the form of credit that is created electronically by private banks through the accounting processes they follow when they make loans. for an idea of the full extent of tax payer value of such a policy see´´,stands I will do what I can to help those who advocate for those economic policies to achieve their self set goals , even where that involves seeking political office which I do not believe in There are the politicians in all of the main parties for who I make my own contributions in an uncoerced , unofficial but committed fashion including Jeremy Corbyn, Steve Baker ( conservative MP for High Wycombe) and other organizations I also do my own thing for. most are thankful and some become friends but of course in my world there are no Gods and No Masters and as such no conflicts of interest. I have no conflict of interest and whilst my degree of commitment to the ideals I believe in might strike some as odd it is no more odd than being a wikipedia editor. I would spend more time on Wikipedia but my activism and work in my field does not overlap very often with a need or inclination to make contributions here this is a rare exception. I have noticed that an early editor on the GPL2016 article here is also someone I know and I have also written to other Greens encouraging their active participation in improving this Stub article , looking at the group project page I am struck by some of the guidelines and would venture they are very good and might be paid a little more attention Be polite, and welcoming to new users

  − Assume good faith

− Avoid personal attacks

− For disputes, seek dispute resolution

I take all of these principles on board and there is nothing here we can not resolve. The Conflict of Interest point is I think dealt with if not then do please make a substantive argument Bondegezou it seems to me thin broth upon which to base any banquet though?20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)RogerGLewis (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Brianhe closed this discussion, but agreed to re-open it on my request. While there are content disputes, I don't feel the COI issue has been resolved. Specifically, User:RogerGLewis made the followings comments at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016, having added a set of endorsements for candidate David Malone: "Here are the endorsements I have listed I am awaiting a further list from David Malone and crosschecking both his endorsements of deputy leadership candidates and other endorsements he has also recieved" diff "I am assisting David Malone with his campaign media and there is a legnthy list of other endorsements which i hope to be updating over the next few days." diff But also said: "I am not a member of the Green party and whilst I support David Malone this is based upon my own area of political involvment [...] With independant endorsements suitably cited it is actually irrelevant whether or not I personally support or am employed by Malone. In fact I am not employed and do not act in any official capacity for Malone but have been doing some social media support for Malone purley on a voluntary and independant basis." diff The former comments imply an active involvement with a campaign team, a clear conflict of interest, although the last quote may suggest otherwise. Further comments from RogerGLewis have not explained the earlier quotes, but have denied a COI or indeed the validity of the concept. The most detailed are at User_talk:RogerGLewis#Noticeboard_issue. RogerGLewis: what did you mean by the first two quotes? Are you in regular contact with Malone about his campaign? O wise minds of COIN, input on the content dispute of course welcome, but what do you think of the COI issue? Thanks. PS: RogerGLewis, please note WP:CANVASS. Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou talk I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process ( This I have counted in my 3 conversations via Skype ) I have never met David Malone in person and shaken hands let alone broken bread or shared a cup of tea or had a Coffee purchased for me at whatever coffee houses there are in Scarborough.I participate and have done since 2011 in the active and lively comments section of Davids Blog where Davids running was announced other readers there have gone further than me in that they have joined the Green party specifically to vote for him, I do not engage in party political politics and have political opinions which are negative against the illusion of choice democracy that masquerades as real democracy, I have explained this elsewhere but a discourse on my own politics is surely not necessary is this the new inquisition, ( see Ekklesia, for good faith assumptions and also) [1] [2] I am not formally directed by or allied to the Malone Campaign and have no financial, political or filial interest in the outcome of this Election and therefore no conflict of interest within the Wikipedia definitions and the wider professional and legal definitions of the term. I am a Member of the RICS and have studied Conflicts of interest as they apply to my professional Field of expertise as a past admissions assessor for the RICS membership board I have professional experience of interviewing candidates on their obligations with regard to conflicts of interest. I have also studied Ethics and Jurisprudence as part of my Philosophy studies. I do not have a conflict of interest.Should my editing indicate a possibility of Bias I could understand your continuing questioning on this issue, Andrew Williams sent me an e mail this morning saying he is returning from Hols at the weekend and will sort out the links for the endorsements I have added should they indeed need sorting out?, perhaps you would hold this in abeyance and settle the question of Notability and Source reference with Andrew. I have accepted your explanation on Ekklesia [3], and possible connection COI to the Bartley/Lucas campaign in good faith, I see no reason why you will not reciprocate in kind, but that is a matter for you. I respect that you must act according to your own volition. I have exchanged comments on blogs with Clive Lord and I have also posted a series of Blogs on my own blog which I have of course not referred to as it would be improper to do so, I have promoted and engaged in discussion on the Leadership to ensure that Monetary reform and Green Party Manifesto Policy EC661 I blogged about this policy in 2015 [4] and have many posts in comments sections on many publications referring to it and explaining its import to Political Economy, I support David Malone as he wishes to expand and explain this part of green policy and that coincides with my own political objectives as informed by my own activism which is unaffiliated to any organisation or other individual although I do identify as a supporter of various campaigns including the Malone Green Party Leadership campaign Supporting a candidate and declaring support does not constitute a conflict of interest, one also realises that ones editing should not be biased and I think it is safe to say there is no indication of Bias in my interventions here whilst I do have concerns that the Article is unbalanced and gives a bias in the Direction of Lucas/Bartley which I am sure they would also be horrified by. With respect to Lists and wikipedia not being one, I expect that David Malone will receive more votes than Natalie Bennet secured to win the leadership in 2012 Bartley and Lucas will similarly get more votes, Williams is likely also to poll a larger number as well Clive Lord Martie Warin and Simon Cross will also I think poll between them more votes than the winning tally from 2012. As the turnout is unlikely to be lower than 2012 and the membership is enlarged to 60,000 and with declared support for Davids Campaign already having been counted in the order of several hundred messages, 5 endorsements hardly count's as a list and as I have said before it is absurd to have an article which suggests that The front runners and other Candidates have no notable endorsements In politics notability must also be in the eye of the beholder, for instance Nigel Farage would not consider an endorsement from Marie Le Penn or Tommy Robinson for instance to be noteable , in a good way at least. No candidate would wish to give the impression of scraping the bottom of the barrel by citing a bloke up the pub , that said he thought the policies of x were mint. I 'have expanded on my reasoning elsewhere regarding the distinguishing features for a sui-generis approach to the extant election. Again I invite you to await input form Andrew when he returns from Hols. Meanwhile shall we do some constructive work on a metric for more Democratic elections for parties like the Greens.I will have a look at the Labour Leadership , UKIP leadership and other STV AV examples and put something up for discussion in the Elections and referenda talk page if you think that is a good idea? RogerGLewis (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 07:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)07:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)~~

ANI noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

August 2016

Misunderstood {{uw-legal}} warning - see below comments

Your recent edits to WP:ANI could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. -- samtar talk or stalk 09:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Additionally, you have made a legal threat at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums -- samtar talk or stalk 09:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Samtar, I am not considering taking legal action although I suspect that both UKIP and The Green Party will be less than amused could you advise of the best place to bring this serious matter to a quick resolution please?RogerGLewis (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe - your edit summary here states "Notice of possible legal action!" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant by the Green Party or UKIP not by me, it was not a threat but an observation, sorry for any confusion. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, understood - I've collapsed the above warning in good faith, and apologise for the misunderstanding. In the future, I would reccomend not mentioning "legal action" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

samtar you can count on that, thanks for your swift action. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the material that references this page at the article Talk page. You have to stop refactoring that talk page. You also have to stop using other editors' usernames embedded in your posts with their sigs so that it's not clear who's saying what. You've done that with multiple different usernames, including mine. Once one of your comments has been responded to, you can't go back in and change your comment. If you want to say something different, then add it, but don't alter your comment after the fact. It's misleading and again distorts what others say. I'm rapidly losing patience with your style of interaction at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you can't interact reasonably with the community, then you have no business editing here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Bbb23 Could you explain what Re-Factoring is, using embeded usernames I will stop doing I did not know it caused issues. On editing after the event, I am trying to go back and precis my longer entrys in talk as User57 explained that even on talk pages the convention is to stay under 200 words, obviously I can happily admit I have not been doing that and I will teach myself to quote the wording in policy I wish to refer too without quoting the relevant passages, which obviously leads to bloated word counts. On Reasonableness I do not accept that I have been un-reasonable. Losing patience with Style of interaction where it is through a novices incompetence is of course understandable( if assistance is rejected or ignored), I hope you will see that I have been attempting to rapidly improve my competence and will continue to do so. On the point about re editing comments after the event that puts me in something of a quandry as if I am to precis my arguments to conform with the 200 words convention to encourage others to participate and as explained in my interaction with you earlier RogerGLewis (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• I encourage you to keep your word count down, but for the future. Don't go back in and cut down on your text unless it hasn't yet been responded to at all. Once there's a response, it remains. See WP:TPO for information about refactoring.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 Thanks for that , timely advice for which I am most grateful. It seems there is hope of a settlement via consensus if a suitable process and time period can be agreed, I remain optomistic.RogerGLewis (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerns of Corporate Green-washing

Greta Thonberg responded to concerns of corporate capture of her message which has been expressed by the Wrong Kind of Green , an Indigenous peoples environmental group. "We attempt to expose those who undermine the People’s Agreement. One role of the non-profit industrial complex is to undermine, marginalize and make irrelevant, the People’s Agreement. The reason being, to protect corporate interests by which they are funded. As well, the non-profit industrial complex protects the industrialized, capitalist economic system, responsible for the capitalist destruction of our shared environment. Those groups who continue to protect such interests must be considered complicit in crimes against humanity."RogerGLewis (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

/* Concerns of Corporate Green-washing */ I am reverting this new section if you wish to suggest and edit then please do It is clearly a concern looking at previous comments . I will initiate a consensus process if the revertiung continues. WH RogerGLewis (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus Process,

Please suggest constructive edits I am happy to improve the section in consensus with the community. SHould a constructive section not be arrived at then I wish to institute a consensus process similar to the one in my Talk pages on The Green Party Leadership election of 2016 and 2018 and the Bolding issue in the elections template. Any more vandalism and I will seek adjudication from a senior editor. An invitation to discussion I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

RogerGLewis (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy Thank you for the helpful reminder. Perhaps you could help, In both the Article on Greta and the article on extinction rebellion it is clear that there is a feeling that both articles read as biased as if prepared by a PR copywriter. Both articles would usefully have a section regarding controversy / Criticism of the movements, How do you suggest that the balance is be introduced in a fair non- controversial way? I would propose a plain criticism section with links to source? would you agree and assist in this?RogerGLewis (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If there are quality RS's with criticisms, of course I'd support neutral editing to present these criticisms with appropriate weight. I mean, of course. Please don't edit Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, and if you have such sources then by all means, WP:SOFIXIT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion edit warring

Hi RogerGLewis. Your recent edits to Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion adding a section entitled "Concerns of Corporate Greenwashing" were reverted by me and other editors, and I noticed you have reverted those reversions. It's great that you started sections on the talk pages of those articles to discuss this addition. However, you've also reverted multiple other editors (edit warring) with edit summaries indicating you think the language should stay in the article while discussion takes place on the talk page. I'd ask you to please review WP:BRD. The process is that a bold addition that is reverted must be discussed on the talk page before it's put back in. Another editor has reverted your reversion at Extinction Rebellion and I have reverted it at Greta Thunberg. Please don't put that language back in–instead, continue with the discussions you started, and wait for consensus to build before restoring the content. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Levivich 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My notes about the edit warring...
Greta Thunberg

• 02:41, February 11 2019 Bold edit
• 11:17, February 11 2019 First Revert
• Second revert

Extinction Rebellion

• 02:45, February 11, 2019 (+1,058) Bold edit
• 11:20, February 11, 2019 (+1,058) First Revert
• 19:11, February 11, 2019 (+1,058) Second Revert

Warnings and some discussions

• February 6, 2019 DS Alert Climate Change
• February 11, 2019 Another editor, Levivich (talk · contribs), left an edit war warning note
• Talk pages for both articles

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) Thanks for this, I like the WP:BRD approach and have instituted the consensus proicedure on both pages, DIrcting Thionberg page to Extinction rebellion page, it is the same critisism of both articles and the same proposed improvement to balance the articles.

Further up the page this struck me as a fair comment.Neutrality concerns This article looks like it was written by a PR person. I think this might be the result of certain parties trying to manipulate people's perception of this person by curating her Wikipedia article.

My arguments are that this article:

lists her "ancestor on her father's side" as a notable relative, which is very contrived. While Svante contributed to global warming research, he died in 1927 and him being included feels like someone trying to force him into the article. Global warming knowledge is not transferred genetically; was created on 1 Dec 2018 (just over a month ago), and it's already featured as a "Did you know" on the front page where she's described as "inspiration". Someone is influencing how this person is viewed in the public eye; is about a person whose parents are successful public figures—ones who could afford hiring PR people to represent their daughter, and who understand the value of publicity; I am not opposed to the politics this person represents. I am bringing this up because I believe Wikipedia should be impartial, and this article doesn't feel objective. It feels like it was written by a marketer hired to manage this person's public image. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oops... looks like canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Extinction Rebellion. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

In this case a possible canvassing comment is at the article talk page. There are many appropriate ways to call other eds attention to discussions. Some are listed at WP:APPNOTE. Most new editors do the wrong kind of canvassing to recruit select people to take their side and swing consensus there way. I'm not sure which is the case here, but I thought I would call the canvassing rules to your attention. The potentially problem comment is here. If an APPNOTE exception applies then my apologies but at first glance it looks like a call-out to a single ed you believe will take your side. If APPNOTE does not apply it would be good form to just delete that part of your remark. Of course you are invited to get as much input using APPNOTE techniques as you can get. Usually more input makes better consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) I reject the charge which you made, The discussion in the article has comments to ping those interested as you are messaging me is not biased canvassing. The consensus process is starting and Any infraction which you may have identified in your opinion was on my part inadvertent. Please note the consensus bold editing dispute advice which recommends assumption of good faith etc. I am not easily offended but do please observe the niceties yourself.

RogerGLewis (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing your own comments

Roger, you can change your comments if (A) no one has replied and (B) if you don't wait too long. Today I restored some of your words because a third ed had already replied and without your comment their words make no sense. Instead of me linking the "editing your own" comments, it is crystal clear that you have not studied the full scope of our WP:Talk page guidelines so please do that. You will find not only guidelines on editing your own comments but loads of other good info too. Layout comes to mind and good practices both come to mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I am only a casual Wikipedia editor and I always try to keep to the guidelines, I respect and wish to honour community rules and appreciate your assistance.RogerGLewis (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

RogerGLewis (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop mentioning me

I got ten messages today that someone had mentioned me. It was you every time. Therefore, I switched off the option that I get a message when someone mentions me.

So, if you want to continue harrassing me, don't bother. It will not work anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I take it you do not wish to work on the lede then? RogerGLewis (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC) There are so many libels in here that it is difficult to count them. You cannot call a qualified doctor a quack unless you are willing to defend a libel action. In addition to self publishing Coleman has written books published by a dozen major UK publishers, over 30 foreign publishers, large print publishers and audio publishers. It isnt difficult to see evidence of over 100 books in 25 languages. The page as most recently edited is prejudiced, biased and inaccurate. Why not mention why Coleman left The People (because a column criticising the Iraq war was rejected). Is it not of significance that the government changed its policy on tranquilliser prescribing because of Coleman. (See Hansard). Coleman was the author of the first software for computers. See Times article. The ASA is a private organisation which refused to look at evidence linking meat and cancer and then tried to ban an ad for the book. The ad was then published (full page) by The Observer and The Guardian. Coleman has been widely praised by almost all UK national papers. See his website. Coleman has presented programmes on BBC and ITV. He was the first TV agony uncle and the TV AM doctor. The Youtube video title has a wuestion mark at the end. Have any of these critics actually watched it? Why no mention of Colemans speech to UKIP. (I see that Guy believes that Brexit was swung by Putin. And he calls Coleman a crank! Also Guy works for a company making mobile phones. Coleman has been a stern critic of mobile phones. A clear conflict of interest. EMJ Books has been an imprint run by Coleman since the 1990s. Colemans books are still being published by 'proper' publishers around the world. Coleman who is in his 70s took his name off the register. It is no longer possible for retired doctors to have a licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vernon_Coleman_(2nd_nomination) Here is a re draft of the lede. with some citations as to suggested good practice in Lede writing.

Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English blogger and novelist who writes on topics related to human health, politics and animal issues.He was formerly a newspaper columnist , and general practitioner (GP). Originally coming to prominence as the original TV doctor in the UK. [5]. Dr Coleman again came to prominence during the 2020 Pandemic after publishing a video on youtube[6] which provoked criticism that he was a conspiracy theorist(n 1), anti-vaccination activist, and AIDS denialist. New proposed lede ends.

RogerGLewis (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Refrain from spamming

Roger, I have six alerts here where you have mentioned me on the Piers Corbyn talk page of which I am not involved in. You have also repeatedly been warned not to continue spamming the Vernon Coleman talk page with nonsensical copy pastes. As you are clearly not abiding by these simple rules I am issuing a warning:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Vernon Coleman. MrEarlGray (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Please refrain from abusing edit-war templates towards an individual who is not involved in an edit-war. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MrEarlGray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution This process is what is advised and as the consensus process has not been set in appropriate neutral pages for adjudication by neutral editors your accusations are somewhat spurious. I have been making it clear I wish to follow wikipedia protocols If when the proper channels are exhausted the Lede is voted to remain in its current state I would of course comply, we are far from that point the process as set out in the now served edit warring notice makes that quite clear, see page.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RogerGLewis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not been making disruptive edits, I have followed the consensus process to the letter, the process has not been engaged in and a joint agreement of where to seek independent editor views on the redrafted lede have not been engaged with by my interlocutors

the history seen in the archive of the page and of the talk pages shows that the bias in the article as it stands has been sustained by an abuse of the editors privileges engaging in a swarming approach. I have followed all guidelines and wish the matter to progress as I have suggested with notices on appropriate editor boards the current process is against wikipedia's own guidelines, which I respect and the interactions show that.. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Only one unblock appeal to be opened at a time please. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@MrEarlGray: 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RogerGLewis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not engaged in disruptive editing quite the contrary I have been under a sustained ad hominem attack , have you misread the Message? to me regarding stupidity, That rudeness was directed at me not perpetrated by me.Regarding incompetence, I apologise for any mistakes I have made they are neither deliberate or intended to be disruptive. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Drmies: the various banners and templates are confusing and I am sorry I seem to have pinged Earl Gray I thought it automatically defaulted to the editor issuing the block? RogerGLewis (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see UTRS appeal #41649

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RogerGLewis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My editing in question relates to a discussion on the talk page, I incompetently added notifications to other editors which I can see has been seen as spamming, I used "underconstruction" and "in use" templates in accordance with work in progress advice and incompetenly left too many on the page as initially there were several which I rectified, again I can see these were not useful. Regarding being unconstructive, I understand how my efforts could have been interpreted that way and following wikipedia of assuming good faith, felt that Explaining my point would result in a wider consensus being drawn I can see that this was naive on my part.I would never shy away from a "Mea Culpa" and I hope that suffices. RogerGLewis (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not presently blocked. SQL^{Query me!} 17:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Note for reviewing Admin. Nowhere in all this has it been noted that Roger, having driven a Coach and Horses through talk page ettiquette, has also removed at least two entries to the discussion that I had made, messed with my signature at least once, and still has not even disturbed a pixel at WP:TPG. Hence my WP:CIR suggestion. Can we ensure that he stops banjaxing about with his stupid templates, that he still believes he is was placing according to guidelines. Get him to demonstrate some basic understanding of using Talk pages properly in terms of indentation, signing, templates, deleting peoples posts and in making the point economically. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your interjection Roxy the dog,It is quite clear that my own interjections clash somewhat with your own style. I have made some clumsy mistakes it is true, they have not been intentional. Your own tone I am sure you will agree might be misinterpreted your own talk page has a section on Sarcastic edit summaries, sarcasm and personal attacks can be mistaken for each other? Perhaps we could both try to engage in the process of making the Lead in the article in question better and follow the resolution processes recommended RogerGLewis (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding use of talk pages I have read the page, I have also seen it referred to on another editors talk page

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Keep your arguments in the top 3 tiers. I don't know you, but from what I've seen so far you seem to spend a lot of time in the bottom 2. ~Awilley (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Awilley Levivich, curious that you two have not thought to confront PacMechEng for their advocacy of climate change denial talking points. Why is that? jps (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is advocating any climate change denial talking points in that conversation. Levivich , I think the point is well covered with this exchange on that talk page. I also read this RogerGLewis (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Coolabahapple (talk) makes some still relevant comments in his vote to keep the article , found towards the end of the deletion discussion here RogerGLewis (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

talk (talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RogerGLewis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wish to move this to an arbitration committee I have accumulated sufficient evidence that the editing on this page has been in breach of Wikipedias own rules the nature of the block is that I cant log the necessary notices until the block is lifted, I will of course do so when it expires but the delay will be added to evidence of obstruction. RogerGLewis (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You still aren't blocked. Without being blocked - we cannot unblock you.

If you wanted to get in touch with the Arbitration Committee - you could try the methods here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee.

If you're looking to request arbitration, I would start by reading this page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Requesting an unblock when you are not blocked is not going to accomplish your stated goal here. SQL^{Query me!} 05:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your GA nomination of Vernon Coleman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vernon Coleman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bougatsa42 -- Bougatsa42 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Official portrait of Sam Lee.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Official portrait of Sam Lee.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 08:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Official portrait of Sam Lee.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Official portrait of Sam Lee.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vernon Coleman

The article Vernon Coleman you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Vernon Coleman for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bougatsa42 -- Bougatsa42 (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Affordable Housing , Article to reference

The Ending of the Long Monetary Expansion Cycle and a Brave new world of Housing Realism.

The Long Monetary Cycle, 1972-2023 and the Long Social Contract Cycle 1979-2003. The dynamics of Housing Financialisation and the Degradation of Social Housing Capital.

Introduction

ChatGPT says that Overall, the notes and reference document this essay is based upon, presents a neutral and informative tone, providing insights into the UK's housing market and related policies. That is Our Intention.

The discourse surrounding the "Housing Crisis" often neglects important actors and factors. These include the Absorption Rate, Last Time Buyers, Cash Buyers, Fiscal Policy (MIRAS and Stamp Duty), and Mortgage Lending and Credit creation by the Banking Sector. Additionally, the demography of an Ageing population and high levels of net Immigration must be considered. While both Demand and Supply sides should properly be analysed, there is a lack of popular or policy narrative literature on the segmentation of the Housing stock and its influence on prioritisation of choices and related resource and finance allocation for Land and construction across tenures, additional to the more common analysis of Mortgages for the Owner occupation market. The size of the New housing supply and the different players in the Housing Market are also important considerations. Polarisation of the discourse, with a focus solely on supply problems, hinders progress towards a solution. A more nuanced approach that considers demand-side factors such as interest rates, mortgage market liberalization, and income inequality is long overdue. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)