User talk:Philip Trueman

Thank you

thank you for your help i have since changed all spelling mistakes and got rid of any wrong internal links

spelling mistakes???

There is no spelling mistakes on the ciaran mitchell page

Reply

The only reason its red flagged is those people that are red flagged are not on the wikipedia database! im not going to make pages on every little person mentioned on the page

Flagging????

All the info on Ciaran mitchell is correct at time of editing

deleting this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prancing_Horse

im am good friends with the website owner who assited me on making this article. it is all his own info and his own website.

Incorrectly accusing me of vandalism

Why are you flagging me for vandalism? I corrected a link for WHT, and cleaned up some other pages. Hardly vandalism. Who are you anyway? Ill be checking your changes out as well. 69.140.51.137 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed your "vandalism" warning.

What I did was hardly vandalism. Adding a link to something called WHT (Wometco Home Theatre) on a page where something else is also known is WHT (William Herschel Telescope) is not vandalism. Kindly explain why you singled me and accused me of vandalism, when all I did was seek to clarify two seperate things known as WHT. 69.140.51.137 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that you made your change to William Herschel Telescope in good faith, and that I misinterpreted what you were trying to do. My apologies. However, I hope you will accept that you did not go about it in the right way, and that David Underdown has since sorted things out properly. I would like to think that we have both learned something.

You can find out who I am from my user page. You are more than welcome to check out any changes I make. Philip Trueman 16:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting what I wrote. I agree with your assessment here as well. If I accidentally omitted something in the course of my edit, I do accept full responsibility. I am only human after all. Upon further checking I see that a mistake was made, and I do appreciate David Underdown's rectification of that.

However, I also think that if you are double checking work (which is an important and commendable thing to be doing) you should not be so quick to charge someone with vandalism without carefully considering they could be doing something helpful.

Vandalism is a dastardly deed here on Wikipedia, and branding someone a vandal is really a charge that should not be made lightly. More helpful would have been a simple revert or leaving a message to check my intentions, rather than being a self appointed judge, jury and executioner of my credibility within a quick moment. I think anyone who invests time into improving this site is due a bit of consideration in that regard.

That is just my 2 cents. I don't mean to detract from your good work here on Wikipedia. Best of luck to you in the future. 69.140.51.137 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recurrent vandalism by 204.38.101.7

Philip Trueman wrote: Hi! User 204.38.101.7, blocked by Gurch on 20th December for repeated vandalism, seems to be at it again on the "French wine" page. Please accept my humble apologies if I've gone about reporting this the wrong way, I'm a complete newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Trueman (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. The user seems to have stopped, so I won't block them again for now.

The best way to handle vandalism is to first warn them about it (a quick way to do this is to add {{subst:test}} ~~~~ to their talk page), and then, if they continue despite warning, leave another more serious warning by adding {{subst:test4}} ~~~~ to their talk page. If they still persist, report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and an administrator will take the necessary action. (That page is watched by many administrators, so it's more efficient than only notifying one person).

Also, when posting to discussion pages, remember to type ~~~~ at the end of your message (as I've done in the examples above); this automatically signs your name and the date. Thanks – Gurch 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to revert any changes I have made? Do I know you? Is that the 'Wikipedian' way?

Hello

Fancy seeing you here. Since no-one else has given you the "official" welcome. Here it is:

Welcome!

Hello, Philip Trueman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Have you looked at The Proms yet? David Underdown 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

HI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am hoping that you will join the few of us at the disney wikia. [1] We dont have alot of people there, so who ever we can get would be welcome. Want to know how small that thing is? I just now created a Jafar page. JUST NOW. and I became a member about a week ago. So umm....yeah, come help? thanks. My user name is the same as it is here. =]--AngelicDemon92 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The actions of a certain casserole ...

Hey there! AIV is the best place to report vandals who need blocking after being given a level 4 warning. Your edit may get lost if someone else edited before you saved - so it's best to check after that your edit was saved. Keep up the vandal fighting efforts :-) --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liger

Semi-protection prevents newly registered users (accounts less than 4 days old) and IPs from editing the page. That user who vandalized has been here longer than that, so just revert and warn him for his vandalism. Nishkid 64 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page vandalism

Philip Trueman said: for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Is having your talk page vandalised a sign you've been doing something right?

Hi there. You are absolutely welcome. To have your user talk page vandalized, means that you've probably done something either so grossly correct that a vandal would take note of it, or so pifflingly, un-noticeably incorrect that only a vandal would follow it up and vandalize your page.

One of the two. Have a good day. Bobo . 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re ..Gibraltar

Hi Philip,

...deleting "KBE". ...I don't think so. There are lots of other orders of knighthood...

Fair enough; have restored the "KBE". If/when he's given more letters, I guess a new line will be needed! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism today, you are 100% correct. --Gibnews 15:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H0tflick

A, i already reverted them. B, that was probably on ok palce to report them, they were on a roll. There are a couple of things that should have been done though. They should have ben warned with one of the series of spam templates {{spam1}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}} or {{spam4}} (which i did warn them with and they did not stop). Also, there username could violate WP:USERNAME which could be reported to WP:RFCN. I also posted a message about it at the administrators notice board WP:ANI to see what other admin think. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC as post-nominal letters

See Privy Council of the United Kingdom, specifically the first paragraph of the section "Rights and privileges of members". — Wereon 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enumerated lists

CmdrObot's change to National Registry of Identification and Civil Status has replaced some hard-coded numbered lists with enumerated lists. Is it just me, or do all the numbers appear as '1' now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Trueman (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, forgot to sign. Not having a good day. Philip Trueman 12:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, yes, you're completely right, and I should have noticed it when I made the edit in the first place. My apologies. I've fixed up the numbering by removing the empty lines between each item. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==================

I have no idea how to use this so....whoops if it looks wired. you sent my an e-mail thingy saying i was vanadlising but Honsest i reli di fink dat was true! I was only seven when i wrote it but im 8 now so i know better!! It was about Ethelred the Unready.....being unready :P SORRY ur e-mail just got me annoyed tho Cos i did reli fink it was true. So i have to say i fink dat the Vandalism e-mail r a gd idea ..but they wont work i dont fink....... sozzy again ...

===============================

Gibraltar NPOV

I have a huge respect for active wikipedists. I have made just a few corrections here and there (mainly in technical articles (no oppinion problem :)) and I know it is hard. But really, think for a moment that you are, say, from Japan and read the Gibraltar page. The obvious conclusion is that Gibraltar was more or less given by God to the British and that they have to suffer the bothering from Spain ever since. It is not objective. The claims from Spain are not explained or even mentioned. The UN actions and resolutions are not considered. I see 2 major issues (I can give you as many references as you want) 1.- The isthmus was not given in property by the Utrecht Treaty. Later on a neutral area covering the istmus was established. It was occupied later and the airport built on it. This is the reason for a lot of problem about air space in Europe, as it is (according to Spain, if you wish) a British airport in Spanish territory (It is not in the territory given in the Treaty). Other issues are with respect to air and sea space (try to land or dock in Gibraltar without touching Spanish territory). In all these issues UK has imposed their rules with just diplomatic complaints from Spain. When there was a resolution (not entailing, true) by an international institution it has been ignored by UK. 2.- The Utrecht Treaty gave Property, not sovereignty (indeed this is a newer concept). The question of sovereignty was raised when UK changed the status of Gibraltar from military base into colony, to avoid negative resolutions from UN in the global decolonization process. Still there were resolutions from UN claiming that Gibraltar should be given back, taking special care of the civilian population.

I would kindly ask you to widen your sources, and consider other facts than those given by the UK government. The question of a city inside a foreign country is something delicate (I'm also against for the Spanish cases in North Africa). But there are a lot of smaller issues that should be considered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.156.224.65 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would reply with three points. Firstly, I am not a lawyer or an historian or a Latinist, and it would take someone who was all three (are you?) to determine the true meaning of the Treaty. But let's look at the relevant section (from the English version):

"The Catholic King does hereby for himself, his heirs and successors yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar together with Fort and Forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever without any exception or impediment whatsoever.

If there is a concept of 'King', how can there not be a concept of the king's powers (i.e. sovereignty)?. And which, if any, of those powers are not transferred by the all-encompassing wording? None, I think. True, the following sentence includes the words "without any Territorial Jurisdiction", but that sentence is concerned with maintaining the King's control over "the country round about", and refers to that, not to Gibraltar itself.

Secondly, I may not be qualified to interpret the Treaty but I think I can tell when wording violates the NPOV policy. Wording such as ".. and the British the denial to fulfill the United Nations resolutions about Gibraltar." That is POV, quite apart from not being true. UN Resolution 2231, for example, "Calls upon the two parties to continue their negotiations, taking into accou[i]nt the interests of the people of the Territory, ...". It is a fact that negotiations have continued. It is a fact that the British have taken care to consult the people of Territory, with results that are well known to you.

Thirdly, I hope I have demonstrated by my quotations that I have consulted sources other than the UK government. Perhaps you would be good enough to accept that. Philip Trueman 11:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again I'm not qualified to make any legal quote, unless my degree and doctorate in physics, like yours, gives me any super-symmetry power. So: 1st: "(i.e. sovereignty)" this are YOUR words, no Spaniard signed ever anything like that. You can claim that "property" equals to "sovereignty", but it is just your opinion.

2nd: you are right. I was offended by my first visit to this pages written from only one side. My sentence was argumentative. Still there is a fail in folowing UN resolutions (there is more than 1 and it is more than 1 sentence, check it).

3rd: If there are other sources you should use them. The fence was already made when Franco (that big bastard) closed the gate, Spain just made a second door under Spanish control to the fence so that the control would not be only british. The airport is in an area that was formerly a neutral area and occupied by the UK (it is like the UK claim sovereignty over the channel tunnel!). These are facts, check who controlled the gate in the 20's and were the line border was in the 19th century.

Anyway I saw that any change that will not follow the Foreign Office directives will be deleted by a horde of hooligans. I assumed I was not the first civilized person to try to make a change. You won. In the British way. I would just ask you to add at the beginning "British version"

1st. It isn't just my opinion. See this opinion of a lawyer http://www.gibnet.com/texts/gs1_tou.htm - an opinion I am sure you will dispute, but not mine.

2nd. Peace.

3rd. Well, yes, but I can only spare so much time. I think I had enough material to hand to justify my revert on NPOV grounds.

Please could you withdraw "horde of hooligans"? I regard it as a personal attack.

I hope you will reconsider whether to make changes to this article, or related ones. I have no doubt that you have insights into this matter which I and many other Wikipedians do not, and that you could make a valuable contribution. But for anyone's contribution to be of any value at all, it has to be in line with Wikipedia policies. Philip Trueman 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beefday did you do a google seach because if you did you would seen in the usa some citys have beef days and so if people would put information on them thats would impover the article and make it not nonsence at all okOo7565 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you

How dare you suggest that my comments on the late great BRENDAN MULCAHY is inappropriate. You incompetent fool! He is the basis of one of the world's largest cult's and you have insulted many with your comments on the great ritual that ocurred at the San Juan river. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freearena (talk • contribs) 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

carefull!

Be careful when reverting vandalism. You reverted one lot of vandalism (Thanks :) ), but that replaced it with more. Make sure you get all the vandalism when reverting. Anyway, thanks for reverting vandalism! Stwalkerster 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though what I said above, thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page :)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for reverting vandalism on countless pages, including my userpage! :) Well Done! Stwalkerster 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prancing Horse

Because it's only one user posting the page, there's no need to protect it. I've given the author a final warning. If that user posts it again, s/he will get blocked, which should solve the problem. Thanks, NawlinWiki 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And hi to you too

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who uses his real name. And thanks for being a sort of reminder about the Proms. No doubt, we'll bump in to each other there. BTW, I'm surprised there isn't an IBMer category. Or a prommer one. Or maybe there are. --Peter cohen 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jaques Cartier

It's my pleasure. I haven't got a clue why poor Jacques seems to be such a popular target, but there's no doubt he's a favorite of the vandals. Keep up the good work! Cheers --Folic Acid 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PolkaSpots Speedy Deletion

Hello,

I wrote an article on a Wireless Hotspot company, PolkaSpots, last week that you marked for deletion. The comment you made was as follows: "This has been done because the article 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".

Before I wrote the article, I trawled Wiki looking for similar companies to see what others had written about them and copied their general format.

I'm starting to wonder what the purpose of this site is if we're not allow to freely write educated articles about our experiences.

Please advise.

Simon

It isn't the purpose of this site to allow anyone to write educated articles about their experiences. If you want one of those, find a blog hosting site - this isn't one. It's the purpose of this site to build an encyclopedia. Articles about companies are welcome, provided those companies are notable and the article is clear why the company is notable. Articles about companies sourced by the companies themselves are strongly dis-advised, for obvious reasons - no matter how accurate the article, the encyclopedia would lose credibility. Please could you sign your talk page messages in future? Philip Trueman 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]