User talk:Jack4740

Orphaned non-free image (Image:28146291 Shieldshrimp.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:28146291 Shieldshrimp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Davies Flag.GIF

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Davies Flag.GIF. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Davies Crest.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Davies Crest.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sergana

No thanks. Wikipedia has no place for imaginary states that you have invented as in Sergana. -- RHaworth 07:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Flag.GIF

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Flag.GIF, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Flag.GIF has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Flag.GIF itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of NYSRP

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on NYSRP, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because NYSRP seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting NYSRP, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United Provinces Of Sergana

An article that you have been involved in editing, United Provinces Of Sergana, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Provinces Of Sergana. Thank you. CobaltBlueTony 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Experimental edits

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Image source problem with Image:Ulrika6.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ulrika6.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Genisock2 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

British Union Of England, Wales and N.Ireland

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article British Union Of England, Wales and N.Ireland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Russ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point?

I have just removed your novel division of Swansea into "districts" from the Swansea article. In the past, you have also spent some time trying to give Fforestfach the new name of Voorstad van Fforesfach (your typo), establish Gowerton Comprehensive as a member of the Russell Group, proclaim the motto of Swansea as "practiso makes berffaith", and more. I start to think that the Fforestfach "flag" contributed from an IP address was also your contribution. Your contributions under this account have been along these lines for a month now. Please stop it. It's vandalism, and vandalism can get you blocked. Telsa (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(Replie Edit by Jack4740) Actually if you took the time to look and read the article I wrote you'd know why Fforestfach was called Voorstad van Fforestfach, do you want to know why?, because there has been a lot of Dutch immigration into the area in the past 50 years or so,and you want to know why i know that? because a lot of my friends grandfathers were dutch and my grandfather was dutch. Voorstad van Fforestfach is'nt it's new name at all,it is it's name translated into dutch that's all and I think it's relevant to make it known that dutch people live here because my friend,there is very little welsh decent that currently lives here now and there is a lot of Dutch speakers.Plus I am not willing to let a page of information about Fforestfach(where I actually live by the way) just be dominated by the fact that Tesco's Extra moved here and that there has been a drop in Swansea City Centre's visits since park Fforestfach was built right?.I don't know if you actually know or anything but there was actually life before Tesco's Extra, so just because your Welsh does'nt give you the right to judge or change an area which you probably don't even live in, or know about.How about one day you come to Fforestfach, ask a few people there middle names and what there Grandfathers were called and they certaintly won't be English or Welsh.

There's two points here. First, Wikipedia cannot include stuff just from personal information. Everything on here has to come from good references. So even if you know something for a fact, you have to be able to point to somewhere reputable and authoritative as a reference before it goes into Wikipedia. (Yes, when it comes to things that seem obvious, or that are very recent, this is a pain in the neck.) For more on this, there are two policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability; and one guideline: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Second, I agree with you that the page is dominated by marketing-speak and reads like an advert for brand names. Most of it should be tagged as unreferenced and removed if nothing is found to support it. There is plenty of local history and demographics available online and in libraries which could go in. If you want to improve it, go for it. But it must come from reliable sources, which does not include assorted grandfathers' reminiscences.

But none of that explains your other less-than-helpful edits. Have you similar explanations for the city motto, Gowerton school, and so on?

Telsa (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Joseph llewelyn Thomas

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack and he is a real famous person in Wales, and I have cited sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack4740 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your sources do not support your claims, and it appears that you are attacking a real person. Another user has re-tagged the article as an attack. Please refrain from re-creating the article without supporting citations as it appears to me and at least one other editor that you are creating an attack page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Joseph llewelyn Thomas, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gowerton comprehensive 200px.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gowerton comprehensive 200px.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

May 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Cardiff. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bettia ^(talk) 09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please stop vandalizing pages. Bob98133 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Vadalizing what pages?, I was currently in the midst of changing some information on the Yeovil Town FC page

Come on Bob, I want an answer.

You have not documented that any of these animals are extinct in the wild. They are domesticated. Sorry I called it vandalism when it was good faith editing, just wrong. If you're not happy with my changes, discuss them on the talk page of the articles to see if others agree with your changes.Bob98133 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Extinct in the Wild Extinct in the Wild (EW) is a conservation status assigned to species or lower taxa, the only known living members of which are being kept in captivity or as a naturalized population outside its historic range.

AND Domestication.

They may be the same in your mind, but they have very different meanings. That is why EW is at the far left of the conservation status bar - it means they are close to extinction.

Before you aregue about definitions, could you please look them up? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob do you even know what you're talking about?, that line does not refute anything that I've said infact it proves what I'm saying 100%. It just looks like you've gone over to that article and copy and pasted that first opening paragraph without actually knowing what it means.

I know this because I too have revised to what I'm saying and done some research, hence why I spent 4 hours changing everything.

Bob, the only known living members of the Chicken species are domesticated, there are NO wild chickens. The same goes for dogs and cats. This article is written in a way in which it serves species that are extinct in the wild but serve no major purpose to humaity, there is nothing diffrent in a Dog's conservation status than there is to a Hawaiian Crow's, both are extinct in the wild and both are kept in captivity and it's incredibly stupid to seperate the two when there's nothing to seperate them by.

So it's you who should go away and read.

So, there are no wild dogs (see canis lupus and dingo) and no wild cats (see Felis silvestris and African wildcat)? What planet do you live on?--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For a start ramdrake, they are not the same type of cat or dog as I am talking about, I am talking about the Felis catus and Canis lupus familiaris two types of cat and dog that only live in captivity.

Felis silvestris and canis lupus are not addressed as Cat and Dog, they are addressed as African wildcat and Dingo, not Cat and dog, so stop twisting the discussion.

Canis lupus and Canis lupus familiaris are genetically the same species. Same can be said of Felis silvestris and Felis silvestris catus (a.k.a. Felis Catus). If you wish to dispute those, please present reliable, verifiable sources to that effect. And that's not even taking into account the millions of feral cats and dogs worldwide. A domesticated species is by no means mandatorily extinct in the wild (although there are exceptions).--Ramdrake (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can't even tell the difference between the European and the African wild cat, you sort of prove my point that you don't know what you're talking about. I would recommend you read a few books on the origins of the dog and cat (especially about their genetics) before you say any more inexact statements.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

When I said that there are NO Cats and Dogs living in the wild, I meant there are no Canis lupus familiaris or Felis silvestris catus, I am not disputing that they are diffrent. So stop using fallacies to win the arguement, IT'S YOU WHO IS IN THE WRONG, because IT WAS YOU WHO MISREAD THE INFORMATION I PRODCUED SO GET IT RIGHT. Why would I dispute about Canis lupus or Felis silvestris not having conservation charts when on their page they do dumbass.

Also Felis catus and Canis lupus familiaris are diffrent from the wild species because:

1. Both species live in the wild and the other species do not 2. Both have diffrent adaptations to each other

HENCE WHY THEY HAVE THE NAMES:

silvestris and familiaris added on to the end of their names.

I have told Bob this a thousands times, when a species is domesticated it NO LONGER LIVES IN THE WILD, and that is the point that you're missing, yes you can have feral cats, but that's not CLASSED as wild.

Species that are domesticated no longer live in the wild and instead live in captivity.

Conservation status is usually at the species level, not the subspecies level. Please provide soruces to your claims that 1)domestic cats and dogs do not exist in the wild (i.e. feral dogs and cats don't exist) and 2)that domestic dogs and cats present adaptations which do not exist at the species level.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, usually at species level, however there are so many diffrences in traits between wild and non wild in dogs and cats etc that sometimes conservation status is taking on sub species, before long wild and non wild will evolve and differ so much that domestic cat and dog will no longer be a sub species and will become a species of it's own.

I never said that wild dog and wild cat never existed, what I'm saying is that there is no wild Felis catus or Canis lupus familiaris. Both of them are kept in captivity.

Oh and here are some of the evolutionery traits that differ between wild cat and domestic cat and wild dog and domestic and a few others as well, they can all be found at this site:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/7-Differences-Between-Domestic-Animals-and-Their-Wild-Forebears-74685.shtml

First, none of those differences make them different enough to be different species (there are specific criteria which differentiate species). Please provide sources that say conservation status is applied to the subspecies level. Also, please address the existence of feral cats, dogs, horses, cattle, chicken, etc. which all live independently from human intervention. These are by all standard definitions "wild" counterparts to domestic animals. Also, please refrain from presenting your own conclusions as fact, this is called original research, and isn't permitted here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that they ever were a diffrent species? no I said that they have diffrent traits that's all so stop using the simple strawman to win this debate, I just said that those domesticated animals DO NOT live in the wild. Maybe it's you who should address the diffrence between "FERAL" and "WILD" and most importantly stop using fallacies to cover your tracks because it doesnt work. You say " presenting you're own conclusions as fact" does that mean reading information and just relaying back to you? LOL. How dumb.....

A feral organism is one that has escaped from domestication and returned, partly or wholly, to its wild state. This is the definition of feral. Therefore, at least some feral animals are considered wild, which negates your sweeping statement ("domesticated animals DO NOT live in the wild"). I would advise you to read our policy against personal attacks. If you continue calling people names, you will eventually get blocked. I believe our conversation is finished here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually our coversation is far from finished, because feral animals are STILL DOMESTICATED animals living in the wild. They have been domesticated animals from birth, just because they have escaped into the wild does'nt mean that they are a WILD ANIMAL. So your little smart sentence negates nothing of what I'm saying so get back here and debate.

Most feral animals in feral colonies were born in the wild. That is especially true of dogs, cats and horses.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If they were born in the wild, they would'nt be called feral animals would they?, they would be called WILD animals.

Well, say they were, then that proves that the subspecies isn't extinct in the wild (since it reproduces in the wild). You just disproved your own argument. Congratulations!--Ramdrake (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No it does'nt disprove my arguement because most escaped domesticated animals don't even live to get to the stage of breeding because they are so used to being domesticated from birth that they do not have wild instincts. That's why there are no wild domesticated cats or dogs, otherwsie if there was scientists would'nt of bothered adding a sub species! Congratulations! I don't even know what you're talking about when you say "Most feral animals in feral colonies were born in the wild. That is especially true of dogs, cats and horses"?????????

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) 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh how lovely the world is not sinebot, that you have presented me that very helpful info! yay! Go do something constructive like find spammers or something.