User talk:Peter James

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Park Farm, Kent may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to [[Ebbsfleet International railway station|Ebbsfleet International station]] in 20 minutes, [[Stratford International station|Stratford International in 30 minutes and the recently modernised

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Citybus

Do you have a source for the changes made here regarding Glasgow Citybus and Henderson Travel? The only thing I could find was http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:298109-2013:TEXT:EN:HTML (and copies of it) saying that Henderson Travel was surrendering its licence and that its contracts were being taken over by Glasgow Citybus. Peter James (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement re the sale was made by (User:92.40.249.176) on 5 September. Have requested a cite, but as 6 weeks later still can't find any reference, have my doubts. Seeing the date is the same as your link, suspect someone has got their wires crossed. Will give it 72 hours and if cite not forthcoming will reverse.Mo7838 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

92.40.249.176 added: "It was announced on the 3rd of September that Glasgow Citybus has taken over Henderson Travel." You changed it to "In September 2013 the business was sold to Henderson Travel." Peter James (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My error, have corrected.Mo7838 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing on the Seven Seas

Is the date of 18 March correct? It was added by a vandal adding wrong or unsourced dates to a great number of articles, over several addresses. It might well just be made up. James^x12345 16:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct according to https://web.archive.org/web/20090918031602/http://www.omd.uk.com/discography/html/index_87_91.html - I can't find a singles discography on the current version of their site. It looks like the anonymous editor is assuming that records (albums or singles) were released 12 days before the first chart entry, which is usually correct (a record released on Monday enters the chart on Sunday dated the following Saturday), but not if they have entered the chart later than the first week of release or were not released on a Monday. It's probably not vandalism, but original research that's sometimes wrong. Peter James (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the changes to OMD release dates and the editor made more errors there than corrections if the official site is correct; however, it would be better if we could check with other sources such as at the time of release (particularly for "La Femme Accident"). Peter James (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one because they do not respond when blocked, switching to a different I.P. to continue as before. I have no idea what to make of it, to be honest. Thanks anyway for looking into it. Regards. James^x12345 18:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"England, UK" vs "England"

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? on a topic you have recently discussed elsewhere. Please have your say if you wish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected userpages

Peter, it is not clear to me why you feel that I should modify the protection levels of my pages; you might care to explain your reasoning? FYI, my talk page is open to every autoconfirmed user; my userpage is admin-only, which is wholly reasonable as no other editor should need to edit there, and vandals, if allowed, have a habit of attacking the userpages of the more active vandal-fighting admins - which I happen to be. So no, I will not change the protection levels. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, I think, confusing user pages with talk pages. There is never a reason for a user to edit my user page. Any established user can edit my talk page. Re-read the link you posted - it deals with talk pages only. I do not mean to give offence, but please check your facts before criticizing users of many years experience.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having established that, did you actually have anything you wanted to ask me? If so, go to my talk page where you are free to edit! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, because of your persistence I have looked back through my talk page, and have received 65 postings there since I removed the semi-protection including some from new editors, plus three from you. So what is your problem?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd arrived at your user page and noticed that it was protected, surprising considering your addition of a comment on another user's page, but then noticed the reason, which no longer applied, and the semi-protection on your talk page. I had assumed it was just something you had forgotten about when you returned, and that you would just remove it, and maybe semi-protect your user page; I don't believe that the current talk page protection is justified. Some messages that wouldn't have been possible with semi-protection and are not vandalism:[1][2]. I didn't mention a wikibreak template, only the "wikibreak" that was in the protection message (visible when editing the page from an autoconfirmed account with no additional rights). Peter James (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Singleton, Lancashire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cuadrilla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further regarding The Banner's deletion of user page review

It's inappropriate to continue using a closed review for discussion.

I recognise that we can't always keep up with our intentions and it's all too easy to let too much time slip before we return to an issue. Unfortunately, you miscalculated its being "an obvious keep" (sic) and failed to comment until 7 November, while the request had been submitted 24 October.

Considering that he/she has the option of appealing the finding via WP:DELREV, is it some sort of life and death issue? Should an appeal be lodged and find in favour of the user, the contents would be reinstated or allow him/her to replicate it on another 'noindex' page. That stated, would you consider that The Banner's response - mirroring the entire deletion review and referring to it as a 'gag order' on the deleted workpage (which was being watched after other contributors spotted it on the RfC page) - to have been justifiable and reasonable? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maths is wrong?

Hello, please forgive me as I am using a public library here so cannot login to my regular account. I was patrolling this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Pearson_%28entrepreneur%29 and note you state the consensus was undecided. Is there some sort of weighted voting here, as I see 4 deletes and 2 keeps? Kindly extrapolate! Thanks. 90.214.192.15 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only stated a reason for keeping the article, I didn't mention anything about consensus. The statement that there was no consensus was made by Mark Arsten, who closed the discussion after relisting; SarahStierch had also relisted the discussion after the same number of deletes and one fewer keep. No consensus usually means keeping the article (with some exceptions, such as if the subject of the article requests deletion). You could take it to deletion review, but to me this looks like a reasonable closure: the discussion is not a vote, and some arguments for deletion were weak (or in one case, non-existent) and didn't address the arguments against deletion, so were probably given less weight. Peter James (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L'Oréal Smauritius

Regarding this comment, could you please specify who it is? It's not Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zad68, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cerebellum, or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Interior, and nobody else this year has had an unopposed nomination. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fluffernutter, in 2011. Peter James (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Hello there. I've noticed that you've been helping out in reverting vandalism/poor edits on Wikipedia. Seeing that you're autoconfirmed, I would like to introduce you to Twinkle. Twinkle is a set of javascript functions that can grant autoconfirmed users the rollback links, as well as provide many additional options. Twinkle is used by thousands of editors and is a useful tool for all users hoping to help in the war against vandalism. Thanks, and happy editing. K6ka (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've already seen it, and prefer not to use it. Peter James (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the oppose on my ban

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the oppose on my ban. I appreciate it. I'm also sorry I am posting from this username. Unfortunately the admins have preemptively blocked the IP's I was using in an effort to force me to create an account, so they could then be able to justify blocking me for socking (I really hate it how they are allowed to bait the trap like this) I had to create one for now. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko BannedEditor (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars35

It's a quirk of doing things at UAA. The bot had picked it up thinking that the "ars3" might be a way of hiding "arse". Obviously it wasn't intended that way, but the only option from UAA for blocking as a VOA defaults to {{uw-vaublock}} as the blocking template.

Does it really make a difference? Wikipedia's better off without them as they currently are. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cumbria County Council election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brampton, Cumbria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prins Maurits

Hi, My username is more likely correlated with Maurice, Prince of Orange. I would like to keep my username Prins Maurits (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for being rational in a disputed area, and introducing a valid and interesting point. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archives