User talk:Blowdart

Welcome to Blowdart's talk page.

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Death of Baby P

I am not in the United Kingdom, I am in the States of Jersey, the court order does not have any jurisdiction over the people on the Island. The local media have published this information as has the press over in Gurnsey too. 90.197.118.16 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah it was the Sky IP address that made me assume the UK. Who knew they had spread their tentacles out there. Regardless if you read the talk page the consensus has been not to put the names on wikipedia, and any time they are published the revisions that they are made public in will be deleted; and if a single user keeps doing it over and over they will be blocked, or, if they choose to hide behind an IP address that IP will be blocked. So please don't. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CTA

Please note from this diff that I am only reverting to the status quo. The start diff is you reverting BHL's changes to my edit showing there is no change. Though I understand your concern I am not that Wikipiere character, I just don't have an account.194.125.86.146 (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Howard Winstone article

I thought you might want to know, I have corrected two edits made by user 193.62.43.139 to the above article. They seem to be mild forms of vandalism. I noted that this address has a number of warnings for vandalism and that you were the last person to issue one. Dposte46 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to page

How can you say that a link to a site containing information on turf is against your terms and conditions. You have 2 links from the turf page to "the turf tavern" a pub, surely this is advertising as the pub sells beer. Another link to the "turf hotal" what information can these 2 sites offer other than promoting the existance of their establishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.255.6 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

COI and advertising

I am sorry, but I was asked to put up a page for my play. When it was pointed out that there was a conflict of interest, I merely passed relevant materials to a third party and let them do it. What they have produced I personally would not have produced, but I have left the text unaltered. However, they mentioned including certain productions photos (to which I own the copyright) and the programme notes explaining where the play came from (to which I own the copyright). I fail to see how this in ANY way contravenes the terms and conditions of this website. I am currently filling out a well-sourced page for myself having previously deleted it MYSELF. I am not sure who you are, but, whilst I admire your interest in keeping Wikipedia objective, I fail to see your actions as objective since I am not breaching any of your codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskeharrison (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply because you're asked doesn't mean you have to do it; and by getting someone else to do it there are *still* COI concerns. Interestingly your "3rd party" reposted exactly the same initial page as you did before it was deleted the first time. As for adding program notes, they're not factual, they're not objective. The photographs don't really add anything and you've lied in the copyright release saying you created them yourself, which you say here you didn't. And finally, you didn't delete your own page yourself, you blanked it after you were tagged, and creating a page for yourself *again*, despite the COI issues really does indicate some self promotion agenda. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion

I have no interest in enterring into an argument about this. There is a certain amount of good stuff and a certain amount of rubbish in circulation written about both this play and myself (see how they cut my interview in Tatler or my old school friend Charlie Methven in the Daily Telegraph or Andrew Haydon's oh-so personal venom in Time Out). When someone said my play had no page and neither did I and I should put them up, I agreed at first. Then I didn't. Now I do again. It is a thorny issue. Their page probably looked like mine because when I sent them all the information and told them that that had been objected to, I sent what I had written so they could avoid repeating whatever errors you lot decided were there.

In order to gather as much information in one place about that play and other work I have done in the public domain, it seems to me to make sense to put it all here. That way, if people want to add things, they can add onto a sound basis. There is something self-seeking and self-promoting in all human action, but in this case, mine is no more than usual. Just trying to lay out the facts so when people ask for them, there are some there.

Oh, and as for copyright issues, I have purchased all copyrights when I, as CEO of Mephisto Productions, employed myt friends Matt Jamie as photographer and Andy Cooke as designer. I have no need to credit them, but it seems to me very, very rude not to. Whether I ticked all the boxes on this frankly incomprehensible sit I am not sure. I am learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskeharrison (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Fiske-Harrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskeharrison (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK then you need to release the works under a GFDL compatible license; this means anyone can take the work and republish or use it as the basis of another work. You will also need to provide proof that you own the copyright as well. You need to understand all the ramifications of doing so. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your email Fh: I did not want to add the pics in case they fell foul of Wiki rules. --Bigjimedge (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want my writing on your page, you're welcome to it. I see you removed my reference to my bullfighting essay from the Wiki article on the subject; despite it being a comprehensive essay in probably the most prestigious magazine of debate currently in the UK, when no one else is producing such a thing. Hmmm... but then your type of person is infinitely more interested in form, being unable to generate content. So I guess this site does encourage self-promotion then, but not in the obvious way, but of a far cruder and more insidious kind. And to think, for Britannica they had Van Doran. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the obvious COI it's not up to you (or your mates) to add references to your work; if they're truly notable (and that is unclear) then someone else will take note and add them. Do you not understand the COI concept? You can always suggest COI additions on the talk pages of articles and let others decide. As for personal attacks; oh dear. I'd better tell my publisher they can't publish that technical book at all because someone on wikipedia says I cannot generate content. Oh woe is me. --Blowdart | ^talk 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not 'unclear', all one has to do is read. Which is why I have letters of congratulation for the essay from Frederick Raphael and David Aaronovitch, because they read it, whereas as you did not.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, perhaps if you won't read that, you'll read this. Please note the line: "a piece which sparked one of the most in-depth discussions ever to feature on this blog". So you write technical pieces? And you didn't notice that my Times Lit. Supp. piece describes my time as a judge of the annual contest of AI that is the Loebner Prize? --Fiskeharrison (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes

This is a minor change, which i believe is a fair change to Globespan. As you have for Thomson and thomascook as 'British' it is only fair that Globespan is the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyce118 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

yea, globespan could be argued (so I'm not reverting that one), except I'll put money done in that they are registered in Scotland. As for places, err, really, why? --Blowdart | ^talk 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Flyglobespan Scottish/British

FYI: I had reverted the change, too ... but an admin in the UK (and an aviation expert) makes a case for British on the talk page. NOTE: Yes, there may be other thing at play here (and other considerations), but life is short. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EOffice

Hi there. I disagree that the awards establish notability. The British Council of Offices is a minor trade organization that hands out awards to it's own members, it is not all inclusive of all companies doing business in this area. Doing a full news archive search for "eOffice 2000" or "eOffice 2000 Limited", which is the article subject full company name turns up all of a single press release. I don't believe this company meets notability requirements. I'd like your thoughts on whether I am missing something. Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 10:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure to be honest; there's enough to decline a speedy with the HSBC finalist position. If anything I'd say an AFD, where I'd vote a weak keep. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of references on the Viadeo Site

I don't agree with your deletions. For example, what facts can you show to contradict the reference I gave for the fact that the French Grande Ecole system is unique to France, especially as I referenced the Wikipedia page that says this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGaynard (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK firstly I deleted a single reference, which was a blog. Blogs aren't consider reliable sources by wikipedia and shouldn't be used in references. I then corrected your Grande Ecole reference to be an internal link, so it's still there. However the wikipedia page does not state that system of education is unique to France. It says the French system as a whole is unique in cutting off specialised schools like that, but it doesn't say specialised schools are unique to France, only the separation is - your wording indicates that the schools are unique within themselves. Furthermore you haven't proven that the knowledge on how to implement a French alumni scheme is down to the graduation from these schools by the owners as the article states. Does that make any sense? --Blowdart | ^talk 11:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had to read it a a couple of times but I think it makes sense. I will see how I can rewrite the relevant parts to take your recommendations into account.--JGaynard (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

iVote

Okay, I read your message on the iVote Mobile talkpage. What would I need to indicate the proof of the subject. I've added a link to the main website in the External Links section and that I think holds sufficient proof. I also read the Notablity page, but I would like more help. Tigernose (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK so. Adding the link isn't enough. You need to find write ups in reliable sources which show the software is notable. For example reviews in major publications, that sort of thing. At the minute nothing says notable at all! --Blowdart | ^talk 18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

about peacocks

I´m sorry to bother You, but for me it´s very hard to understand, what´s wrong with You guys. If some artist (for example Nelly Drell) has already proven herself, if critics are enraptured and giving prizes, journalists (like me) writing articles about her... What more she have to do, to get some respect and fair attentiveness? Sleep with you?

And btw, how many Estonian artist You know in Saatchi gallery?

You can post me Your answers by e-mail: lauriito@mail.ee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriito (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying something is a peacock term doesn't mean the article will be deleted; indeed you've proved notability. However phrases like "Nelly Drell’s creations catch the eye by being bold and realistic and having lots of figural compositions. She isn’t afraid of experimenting with different art styles" are not factual unless you can prove it by citations from reliable sources. Opinions are not encyclopaedic and will be removed unless they're from, for example, a well known critic and are provided in the context of a quote with a citation to back it up. If she is winning prizes you would be able to include that, if they are notable prizes, along with a citation to prove it. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What do You think about those lines? Somebody removed them: "She looks like a blonde Miss World finalist and paints like a jaded academic. I think of Drell as a born illustrator and a born painter, an artist for whom, by her very nature, academic studies and plaster drawing are ideal – an exceptionally rare quality among artists of her age." Harry Liivrand (art-historian)

"She is able to mould an image even with the most erratic of brush strokes, lend it depth with the gentle tempering of tonalities, and what is most important – bestow on the image a sense of well-heeled cogency. Drell does not obfuscate her visions in a tactful or delicate artistic fog: she paints them with a pitiless honesty." Johannes Saar (art critic)

Those are taken, rewrited (shortened) and translated - original sources were Estonian newspapers. I didnt put them to Estonian wiki (there are direct links to articles, but I think for english-speaking art-freaks/english wikipedist is too difficult to read in estonian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriito (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Online Scratch Card

What is wrong with this text?

Scratch games are a relatively new development in the online games industry and are unique in that they provide the user instant gratification (like an online lottery).

Its exactly what it is... Its a fact...

Peter.neo (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you don't provide proof, a citation. However the warning was about your addition of spam links to that article and others to a specific provider, not for that sentence. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

so I only need to put the link there where I got it from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if it comes from a reliable source. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

what about Neo Games

No, most definitely not. Considering that site is trying to see software for online scratch cards it's hardly unbiased or reliable. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But what is the difference then with wikipedia sites like Party Gaming and 888 Holdings? These are sites that provide many gambling sites and I see that as pure advertisement. Besides promoting their product, they have several links to their own websites. Why are they allowed to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff exists isn't a good enough reason. PartyGaming's article is about the company, its history and other factual information. Whilst it discusses Party Poker it doesn't link to it, the link is simply to the corporate web site. Even then the link is in the context of an article about the company, not randomly slapped over articles about something you are wanting to promote. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point and see the difference besides that, I didnt want to point my finger at something(one) else, but I am just trying to understand it.
I was thinking: they are having their site promoted on wikipedia as they have links directly to their sites. Besides that, they could mention Poker instead Party poker. I see it as pure advertisement as Party poker is their product. Don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really; mentioning a company's notable problems is acceptable within the context of the company's articles. Their article doesn't link to their poker web site, but to the company web site. There are no links to PartyPoker on the Poker page where it would be rather suspect. Even on the company page the party poker section has notability given it's size and the citations given. It's hardly advertising when criticisms are mentioned either. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad publishing is also publishing and it works very good. I see that this page probably wont work for the American Market as bad publishing is there very sensitive. Write it in an article for the European Market and you will gain trust and admiration as Europeans don't believe in a perfect world.
Besides that, probably everyone that is searching for Party gaming knows a little bit about the online gambling world. They all know then what it is what they promoting. Then again seeing them having a Wikipedia site, is a huge promotions. Don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I disagree. A simply factual article, mostly about the company, is not advertising for their products, unlike adding a URL to a gambling site on a generic page. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So I may write an article about a company here and to put some other facts (like financial facts) in there, without putting any links to their products, but still describe the product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.neo (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You could try, but you will need to prove WP:Notability and provide citations to back up the claims for notability. And please sign any posts you make on a talk page. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! For all the information. Keep on going like this! --Peter.neo

Sockpuppetry issue

• Sockpuppetry is not true. There are some wiki-admins that they are misusing their administrative rights and say that there are some GC Wiki-admins in 1600 Wiki-admins and they can do whatever they want. We complained this situaiton to the Wikipedia Board. Also, notice that the wiki-admins that block the North Cyprus Wiki-users are all the same Wiki-admins. We submitted their list to the Wikipedia Board as well. Not only VivaNorthCyprus is given as an example of sockpuppetry but also some other Wiki-names are given as well like ForeverTruth etc. Also, if that was the case, why we took that issue to the ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_7 ) page and consult the other Wiki-admins. Please, could you remove "vandalizing sign" from my talk page? Thanks a lot. Look at the History page of the Contributions part of my said Wiki-admins. Cheapfriends (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at your speed deletion tags, but they say "speedy deletion for vandalism". We need a speedy deletion tag not for vandalism reason, but for the old page became obselete reason. Do you know any such tags? It would be better to put that tag (if any) to the old "Northern" pages. Thanks a lot Blowdar. Cheapfriends (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Your pages are vandalism as they are a mass of cut and paste moves. Even without the sock puppet issue you are vandalising wikipedia with your edits. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blowdart, I looked at the reasoning of the user and you. The user seems to find no solution to move of the pages. So, you could suggest the user to put db-move tags to "Northern"s. That's the solution, no such bot exists as the user required. Since, what user did is not a vandalism, it would be better not to put such tags to the user page of the cheapfriends. You are putting the db tags to "North" incorrectly. IntensityOfTheLight (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I am. The user is an unconfirmed sock but the evidence is pretty blatant, hence is it vandalism and the tags are correct. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at what the user is trying to do. So, I compared the Category:North_Cyprus and Category:Northern_Cyprus. It seems that they were just on finishing the conversion. Notice that there are nearly 20 articles in total of these two Categories. Hence, any ordinary wikipedian - including me - can make the changes. For a total of 20 articles, it seems to be losing time to write a bot that makes the related business. IntensityOfTheLight (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it very suspicous a brand new user account comes in just as another is banned, pushing the same POV. Funny that. As for saying it's a non-contentious edit that's an obvious falsehood, otherwise the banning wouldn't have happened. As for the limited edits that would have been because of the 50+ deletions and a bunch of reversions. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friend Blowdart, please do not misunderstand us. North Cyprus is under embargo, and the internet is the only way of getting our voices out. If someone blocks the one NC Wiki-user, the other NC Wiki-user can try to express the things truely. So, putting me to the list of sockpuppets is not a good thing: Here, I am in the dorminatory of a NC University. What NC people do here is follow the internet. You can be sure that another NC Wiki-user in another NC Univ's dorminatory will edit the Wikipedia with correct knowledges. Thx for you patience to read this much :) IntensityOfTheLight (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that a threat that you or your fellow students will continue to vandalise? --Blowdart | ^talk 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Friend Blowdart. We are ordinary Wiki-users from North Cyprus, not Wiki-admins. Also, even if we are Wiki-admins, that does not mean we will leave the truth! Please, think once more the meaning of "vandalizing". That word includes some kind of damage. Here, we are trying to prevail the related law. Think please: There is a quick adaptation of the new name: when you just google (http://www.google.com.tr) the "North Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus", the following hit numbers occur: "North Cyprus": 1 450 000 and "Northern Cyprus": 815 000. But, don't forget to use quotation marks (" ") when googling since only in the quotationed case, the reality is seen very neatly. 1 450 000 > 815 000. We cannot interfere to the hostings of the web sites in which North Cyprus related pages exist! Hence, that adaptation is not emanated from North Cyprus internet users. Thx for kind attention. TitanicLordIceberged (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• (deindent) Hi Blowdart...these are all socks of User:VivaNorthCyprus. I, along with several other admins, have been tracking this a long time (If you want to see some detailed evidence, email me). You might want to consider removing this whole section in accordance with WP:DENY. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• What we do is not vandalising: Some Greek Cypriots are using "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", "Northern Cyprus", "North Cyprus". Hence, they try to prevent a usage of one unique name for the North Cyprus. Else where we are (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing is vandalism hence your constantly being banned. You are POV pushing and cut and paste moving both of which are types of vandalism on wikipedia. Stop it please. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Fiskeharrison

Just in case you missed it:

'Please note before I did this, I did contact the administrator User:MBisanz, and I quote his response of January 24th: "You are free to edit it, or ask someone else to edit it, or place comments on the Talk: page where others would be free to add to the article. Our COI policy lets subject edit their articles so long as they do so in a neutral manner."'

And then your statement: "I suggest you read WP:COI yet again and understand it, stop editing pages about yourself and stop trying to redefine it to justify your own actions"

Do you see the contradiction?--Fiskeharrison (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No - anyone is free to disagree with an administrator, they're offering an opinion, unless there's been a full blown ArbCom decision. It doesn't help that I'm not convinced you are editing to be neutral, but rather to promote yourself. I point you to Rick Ross (consultant) as an example of the best way to approach this. Mr Ross is active on wikipedia but limits his endeavours to the talk page of the article about him, even when he feels that edits are misrepresenting who he is or what he has done. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No man ever understands quite his own artful dodges to escape from the grim shadow of self-knowledge. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of references

Hello Blowdart. I have posted on the troubles talk page retracting my statement that there was a precedent set on the use of references at the British Isles article. I should have double checked before I made my statement as the editors involved appear to be coming to an agreement over the wording. Anyway, apologies for leading you (unintentionaly) to think that was the case. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I think we're both wanting the same thing, it's just getting suitable, non-clumsy wording that's the hard part. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Blowdart. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Lambesis Studios, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: Please remember that A7 can only be applied if there is no indication of notability. If the subject of the article is owned by a notable artist and/or notable artists used it, notability is indicated. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards SoWhy 11:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - notability is not inherited. Whilst the products of a studio may be notable this does not indicate the studio itself is notable, in the same way ownership by someone notable does not automatically infer notability. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A7 is not about notability, although this is a common misconception. It is only about the mere possibility that notability might exist. And it might exist for the reasons I outlined in my message. Regards SoWhy 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Well I guess you could argue that *shrug* --Blowdart | ^talk 12:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments here it was much appreciated. On Whiskey in the Jar, just to let you know that the use of a rapier can date the lyrics back to at least the late 18th century. This could also have referred to a rapaire or halh-pike in Irish. Hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rivers of Ireland

Hey Blowdart, I've made a suggestion on how to progress with this on Talk:Rivers of Ireland (I've outlined it better there than in my response on Superfopp's talk page)—thought you might be interested. Fattonyni (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of MD5 external link

Dear Blowdart,

I saw your deletion of my edit to MD5 external link to www.hashsum.com which is a online crytography calculator for FILES. I object to the deletion. hashsum.com is a first since there is no such online service available; most provide less and none support hashsum calculation for very large files -- even multi-Gigabyte files. A few other links on the MD5 external link section provide similar service but only for strings. Why are they allowed but not hashsum.com? I feel I created a service very useful to myself and many, and disagree with the deletion. Rabbler (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)