User talk:Koncorde
|
Liverpool Population
Hi you removed my contribs on the population of Liverpool City Region...I compared the Liverpool page with the nearby cities of Manchester and Leeds. Manchester has 3 sets of population figures in its intro paragraph, Leeds has 5!! Now you've removed the Liverpool City region population figures that leaves Liverpool with only 2. Firstly how is that fair? And secondly, don't you think this downplays the actual importance of Liverpool's urban area in comparison to these other similiar sized cities? How do you intend on amending the Leeds and Manchester pages? Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
County Palatine of Lancashire
I was just wondering whether or not places such as sale and saddleworth from The historic county boundaries of cheshire and yorkshire are in the county palatine or not,or are these in the county palatines of yorkshire and cheshire.or does the county palatine of lancashire cover all of greater manchester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Explain please
Could you please lists The Districts that fall under the County Palatine of Lancashire if youd be so kind.If even you agree about Greater Manchester being in the palatine of Lancashire,this should be mentioned on greater manchester district pages,instead of just saying Historically a part of Lancashire all the time,as this makes it sound as if the places have got nothing to do with Lancashire at all,which if they are part of the county palatine of Lancashire clearly they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Have a Grudge Against My Editing?
Send me an email: my personal email address is pcnw35083@blueyonder.co.uk I attempt to post other people's personal information on Wikipedia, so why not send me an email at my personal email account?.Shannon bohle (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pity it's not my email account. I posted no information about you so I'm not entirely sure where you got that from. If you will register items on the internet under your name and then attempt to skew wikipedia to reflect and source your own website then that's your own problem. I was happily not paying any heed until archivopedia was drawn to my attention. If you go around posting so much of yourself, regardless of your good intentions, someone will take advantage of that information to glean more. You even invited KathrynLybarger in an attempt to defend your actions - so if you must 'blame' someone for the fact you left your garden gate wide open then let it be yourself. Amateur.--Koncorde (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
for your kind comments.--Blue Tie 20:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Rotary guy
Thanks for the heads up. I read this guys other stuff and he is really wacked out! I imagibe he is beyond all reason. In anycase, thanks for trying to keep things fair and up to standard. 98percenthuman 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman
Mel Gibson
You didnt remove the Bounty reference from the Anglophobia section, i did, please remove this from the history.68.71.35.93 07:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- The history cannot be changed (to my knowledge). You must have removed it with your last edit whilst I was also editing hence me not noticing.--Koncorde 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
West Ham external links
No problem, I'll trust your superior knowledge of the subject, though if its used as a general reference it should probably go in the References section rather than being a plain ol' external link. Oldelpaso 09:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
please cease and desist from tampering with my talk page
Hi mate,
The book sources I have used are the following:
- Blows, Kirk & Hogg, Tony (2000). The Essential History of West Ham United. Headline. ISBN 0-7472-7036-8.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Belton, Brian (2006). West Ham United Miscellany. Pennant Books. ISBN 0-9550394-4-4.
- Hogg, Tony (2005). Who's Who of West Ham United. Profile Sports Media. ISBN 1 903135 50 8.
There a couple of useful websites too:
Happy history hunting!
--Spyrides 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello mate
Sounds cool. I've got a lot on at work so I've been unable to do much wiki-ing lately. However, I've just been bought a new book about Thames Ironworks which is absolutely awesome. If you get a chance to get hold of a copy, do so.
- Powles, John (2005). Iron In The Blood: Thames Ironworks FC, the club that became West Ham United. Tony Brown. ISBN 1 899468 22 6.
It has all of the London League and friendly appearance data that is still in existence, and offers some well researched history.
Take care
--Spyrides 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Imus
Uh, excuse me, but how about getting your facts straight before you edit-summary attack? The citation that I was talking about was the Carter-Steinberg New York Times article that had been anchored in the lead as CartSteinTimes and was deleted without the deleter noticing that it was tagged later on - leaving a missing citation. The editor who did it apologized - it was not a big deal - so what exactly is your problem? As for my accidental caps - congratulations on your biting sarcasm. Must do your mother proud. Tvoz |talk 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apology provided with alacrity, and accepted equally so. (And if you spend any time on that page - which I don't recommend to anyone sane - you'll understand why I didn't go back and unlock my accidentally locked caps when I noticed it and just went for it. I've spent the last few days between Imus and Kurt Vonnegut - and the two of them make the Beatles' "t" vs "T" seem like a walk along the Serpentine.) Nice to meet you, Koncorde. I'm usually nicer than the above might suggest - I can get you some testimonials.Tvoz |talk 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Leave it!!!!
The 'leave it' comment has to do with areas of this article that I have added/edited.
A considerable amount of the statistics in this article were added by me, and the Trivia section in which the image appears was added by me.
200px is too small, 300px appears just right. If you want to size your pictures at 200px that's OK by me. But leave the ones I have added alone.
Mat macwilliam 10:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Bubble Blowers
Please read the section I have added in the discussion. Importantly please read the virus warning.
Mat macwilliam 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Again all your references are non-West Ham related. Citing non-West Ham fans or clubs that use the term in a derogatory way. I have sent a question on the matter to the club historian, and will await the outcome of his reply.
One of the pages casued a virus to be downloaded to my computer. I have the latest version of two browsers Firefox, and IE, I have pop-up blockers and two anti-virus softwares installed.
Marcus A.T MacWilliam, MSc, CEng (IEEE), CEng(SEI), MBCS (CITP), BSc (Hons), BA. (I have forgotten more about computers and software than you will ever know).
Mat macwilliam 13:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Biographies
The statements were removed in the Adrian L. Peterson article because they are uncited. If you would like to add content, please add a source, otherwise it will be deleted per WP:BLP. Thanks. RyguyMN 22:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I may have been quick to add the information back in five minutes, but factual information should be sourced when possible. I don't believe it's overkill, it's a matter of having accurate information. Heck, some editor added to this very article that he returned a kick 109 yards! Should that be kept? Of course not. That's why I believe in citing information, especially for biographies. That's what it takes to make a good article, so that's the criteria I use. I stand by my practices. RyguyMN 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Koncorde. You partially reverted my edit to the James D. Watson article. I understand your reasoning, but you can't leave it in the state it's in. It uses unencyclopedic phrasing ("you should not..."), improperly begins a quote mid-sentence, and the whole thing is non-sequitur (one idea does not follow from another). Please see what you can do. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Race and intelligence
Parts of the article are posted here for editing.[2] --Jagz (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Koncorde
Thankyou for backing me up on the West Ham Infobox header disagreement! Why it should take someone else to intervene before the constant reverting stops is beyond me. One thing though - in your edit summary you put "Sarumio is kind of right, but not in the place where he makes the edit. Have changed this based on other Premier League formats"
- How is your edit anything different to mine - also I was just trying to change it to the same format as all the other premiership clubs' infoboxes too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarumio (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Great Comment on the Criticism of Holocaust Deniers
Your comment about the German uniform hit the nail on the head. I was about to add my own comment (and still might) when I read your entry. You pretty much shut down that argument. I just want to add one more point, though: the color bars on the collars of some of the soldiers in the background. Although the picture is fuzzy, you can clearly make out that they do not extend to the ends of the collar, unlike the uniform's Russian counterpart. I also am fairly certain—although my knowledge on military uniforms is not exhaustive—that these color bars were unique to the uniforms of the Wehrmacht. -Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Roman salute
I thought you may want to take a look at the Roman salute article. I've made some alot of edits to it, including extensive citations.--Work permit (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
JH
Good grief. Our mutual acquaintance has been at this for a while, then? --Ibn (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
St Helens
Thanks for the feedback re Talk:St Helens, Merseyside#Confusion. The webpage I cited just happened to be the first authoritative one on Google. I note the warnings recently given for reverted edits to the article; hopefully the constructive responses to the talk page assertions will reduce the chances of escalation. Hopefully! — Richardguk (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Alright mate, I've been keeping an eye on the evolution of the article recently and am really impressed with everything you've done so far, keep up the good work! Duffs101 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:StHelensBus.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:StHelensBus.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyedit
I read what you've been saying on Leigh talkpages and so I read a bit about St Helens, same sort of history, and also what the IP thinks! I'll do a bit more if you like, I find it theraputic sometimes!!--J3Mrs (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Drogheda
Hi, thanks for your message.
Re the 'factors', I think the sources bring the two arguments toegether, but I'll have to check and get back to you.
Re 'killing them as they ran', I think this is as clear as description of what happened as possible. Would it be better in your view to say, 'pursued and killed'? The retreating Royalists were pursued into the town and killed without quarter. There's no delicate way to say it!
Regards,
Jdorney (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
IP block exemption
Koncorde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I appear to have acquired a blocked IP address (TOR) via my Virgin Media supplied internet connection. I would like to request an exception be applied, if possible, for my account. I believe the blocked IP range to originate at 92.235.0.1 (unfortunately I am unable to edit from my home address to even update this request with the relevant specific IP that I have, I think it is 92.235.239.x or similar). Any help would be much appreciated. Koncorde (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I've granted you IP block exemption — Tivedshambo (t/c) 10:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop
Please cease unnecessarily disambiguating page titles where the titles themselves are ambiguous. Jeni (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Strange Edit
I have no idea why, but this edit doesn't show up when I look at the actual page. Is that just me?
On that subject, I suggested to KittyBrewster that her statement was a bit rash. --Thepm (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Rainhill Station Bridge Photograph
Hello Koncorde,
I am commissioned to write a book about civil engineering structures for railway modellers. I would like to include the above illustration. I understand you have placed the image in the public domain. However, I feel it only courteous to seek your permission to use it.
I am a retired civil and bridge engineer now living in Spain.
Best wishes.
Brynduke2006 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually
I thought I was saying dormitory town as opposed to suburb. A dormitory town is of necessity a commuter town. I'm also puzzled by 'Northwood' ward. The only Northwood I know is one of the original three divisions of Kirkby. As to the percentages travelling, these should be related to the percentage of the population that is of working age, and/or actually working. If that 10% is 10% of each ward, and one considers the high percentage of retired people in the Southport and Formby area, that is high. It's unclear how that figure has been obtained, and exactly what it refers to. I'll read it again tomorrow (or later if I have to take off to Leeds or Sheffield (or even Liverpool...)). Peridon (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Suburbs and Domitory towns, hey Koncorde someone on Litherlands page is trying to widen the boundaries again, i would like some help in changing this, i have had a heated debate over wether litherland is liverpool, (its not) haha, would appreciate your help thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scouserrr (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey again friend, just edited Formby but I think there will be some resistance as usual, once again people trying to enlarge Liverpools borders again, just a hits up, thanks for all your help! Really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scouserrr (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
You Vandalisaion of articles
Your argument doesn't make sense in you comments you list of what is in Liverpool Urban Area, you list Prescot which contains Whiston.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC).
Nationality
For footballers nationalities within squads, I suggest you read the policy MOS:FLAG. "Flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." I'd also like to draw your attention to WP:3RR. Regards, --Jimbo[online] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
West Ham Dream Team
Ok I fully accept your explaination regarding Trevor Brooking and the Number 10 shirt. I suppose my bias took over, and just because I and maybe some others belive he "owns" the number 10 shirt it is not always so. I also admit the first time round I didnt really see the bulid up statement of, in the 2003 book....! or that 500 fans were quizzed!. I orginally thought it was a single persons view and opinion. I admit it was a bad change on my part, and I am 100% in agreement with your undone revision. Keep up the good work...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.128.31 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to S-Bahn does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! No big deal, but if you'd have left an edit summary, I could've probably saved quite a bit of time reviewing your edit 
. Thanks for your hard work! Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
User: 81.111.255.155
I noticed your too have had issues with edits from this user, which was the reason our paths crossed recently as I was replacing the wording on the Scouse page that the user had changed. Do you know how you go about blocking or warning someone for their edits? Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Re:Arsenal Template
First of all, Bellerin did not play in the Premier League. He never did in his life. Akpom had a few minutes as a sub when Giroud got injured, that still does not qualify him for the list. The way the template works is like how the squad list on the Arsenal page works... the players must be listed by Arsenal themselves in the first-team section of arsenal.com (Here is that list by the way). On the page it can be clearly seen that Akpom and Bellerin are not on the list and thus should not be on wikipedias as well. End of story. As for Myron Fernandes, he is listed as a first-team player for Dempo S.C. which can be clearly seen here. Again, end of story. If you have any more questions then please don't be afraid to ask. If you disagree with me still then feel free to take it up with the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Troopers VS Weeman
Hey,
it is not totally impossible to add a column "Watch now!" for the spreadsheet. It would not only separate the click whoring but made it to an option. The link I am using is directly to the videos where you can CHOOSE which video to watch.
Nosepea68 (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
GA reassessment
Anjem Choudary, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
3RR courtesy warning
Please apprise yourself of WP:EW and the strictures thereof, and note that you have made three reverts on the Monckton BLP within a period of two hours, on an article which falls under the ArbCom General Sanctions rules, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Lead for article "Rapid Transport"
I note you have reverted my changes to the lead paragraph of this article.
The problem I have with this article is that, in the opening paragraph, it only mentions the term "Rapid Transit". Rapid Transit is a North American term. It is not necessarily understood outside North America. The more common terms are Metro and Underground. These terms need mentioning in the opening sentence. They were in an earlier version of this article, but have somehow disappeared.
In the "terminology" paragraph it currently says "Metro is the most common term for underground rapid transit systems used by non-native English speakers" I contend that "metro" is the most common term for English language speakers, at least outside Noth America. Also many systems (prime case London) are known as "Underground".
As proof, read the article. There are more systems described as "xxx metro" than as "xxx Rapid Transit", and there is the linked article List of metro systems. You may claim "Original version" rights to call this article "Rapid Transit", which is a foreign term to many English speakers, but at least acknowledge the other common terms in the lead. TiffaF (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Your edit on Rainhill
If Peter Lloyd doesn't have a ref (admittedly not an rs) should he be removed from the list? —George8211 / T 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for the answer. Notable people lists are always trouble-hotspots. —George8211 / T 20:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haydock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackbrook (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) 08:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Standard GGC Notice
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate controversy under a 1RR restriction!
The Gamergate controversy page is under a WP:1RR restriction, imposed here, which your last revert there violated (here, here.) You should probably self-revert your second one! --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Koncorde, you thanked me in the past 24 hours for a simple clarification I included on the Anjem Choudary page, and I'm curious as to why. While it is always nice to be appreciated for one's effort, I'm inclined to think you were commenting favourably on my objectivity in the matter. Just curious but, given my edit was barely worth a blink, can you tell me why so innocuous an edit garnered your approval? With thanx MarkDask 17:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
"ridiculous claim"?
Davefelmer (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)please explain why you think a semi-profesional club should have a place in an article detailing the most successful PRO teams in Europe? Why not just populate the list with local teams then?!
- Article does not say "Pro" teams. It recognises the top divisions. I'm not even inclined to believe it is accurate, or warranted, but that doesn't make removing Linfield any better. Koncorde (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There are other semi pro teams that have won a lot that could be on the list. Why aren't they then? Why is linfield the only one? Davefelmer (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism and honours
Getting into a group stage or even a knock-out stage of a tournament isnt an honour. And neither is restore it reverting vandalism. Murry1975 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
LEVSKI
Your "source" for the trophies is one of the most unreliable I've seen. It isn't a club, a media or governing body's document. Unless you can provide one, the information can't stand. And what do you mean the club's site is "incomplete"? What a ridiculous notion. Every club lists their full honours on their website, your refusal to accept that any club, media or governing body's list is "complete" is ridiculous and is solely done to get your point of view across. When there is no credible mainstream source to define something, you use the closest thing to that, which here is the club website. Otherwise you don't say it at all.
On top of everything, the competitions were unofficial. This is reflected by them not being listed on any club websites and even CSKA Sofia's wiki page where this is noted. With no physical trophy count to prove your claims, they must be deleted and restored to the most reliable piece of evidence that lists the trophy haul. Which is the club website. Davefelmer (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Bulgarian Cup
"Non-official winners" need a separate page and add to the Defunct competitions of Football in Bulgaria. What do you think ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Cup of the Soviet Army (1946–1982) - Official tournament.
In 1981 they also created "Bulgarian Cup" - to be the country name in the name of the cup, for 2 unofficial editions. Practically 2 editions of Cup were played, Cup of the Soviet Army 1981 and 1982 - Official and "Bulgarian Cup" with not all division teams.
In 1983 they swap the names Cup of the Soviet Army became unofficial and Bulgarian Cup Official, this time Cup of the Soviet Army (1983–1990) with lots of low division teams and the big 2 : Levski and CSKA Sofia.
In 1983 Cup of the Soviet Army changed the name in "Bulgarian Cup" - Official tournament, and Cup of the Soviet Army (1983–1990) become unofficial till the end of the communist era, in 1990.
The RSSSF has the neutral information, and we should follow it, instead of Levski Sofia official page. Did you understand now ? Can you write there this in correct English ? Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course on their website (PFC Sofia - Levski Sofia) they will admite that they won 26, because they can write anything in their advantage, but it is obvious that those competition was unofficial. Check the Cup Winners Cup qualification teams from 1981-82 for the next season, and you will see is not Levski Sofia involved. Bulgarian Cup (1981–1982) with the 1981 winner CSKA Sofia and 1982 winner Levski Sofia are not official. The real winner are 1981- Botev Plovdiv and 1982- Lokomotiv Sofia --- teams who qualified for Cup Winners Cup.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you help me with this template Template:Bulgarian Football Cup seasons by adding the rest of the official seasons of the history, I do not know exactly how to do it. Thanks!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Balkans Cup
Can you improve also Balkans Cup seasons, there are not many games in one edition, just QF, SF and Final. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Sources
Hey, I noticed you used a source on the Blackburn page that I couldnt verify by clicking on it. Is that allowed or do you need an actual verifiable citation (so I know in future)? I wanted to request a better source but figured to ask first...Davefelmer (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Sandbox
Hey, check your sandbox. I sorted all the references; thanks for showing me how to do them! Did you now want to look at some of the wording of the edit? Davefelmer (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Updated the sandbox mate. Davefelmer (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you link me to the sandbox?
Hey mate,
Sorry i havent gotten back to the sandbox recently but I've been quite busy with school exams and stuff. Could you send me a link to that article so we can finish the job on it because I can't find it on your talk page. Thanks Davefelmer (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Further Revisions
Made some more changes on the sandbox as per your most recent edits. Think we should definitely move it to the actual page; really liking our work and how it looks and reads.Davefelmer (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Premier League Manager of the Season
You've done a great job making the lead more relevant. Perhaps the second paragraph could be merged with the one after, as it's only two sentences. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Levski
I have looked at the source you mentioned more closely and it does list the sofia championship wins. However, it still doesnt list two of the soviet army cup wins, which the RSSF and club website sources dont show either. so those two must go and they must be recognised as 4 time winners of that cup and not 6, unless sourcing to prove it can be found. also, in any case the sofia championship is a regional trophy so to mention they've won 70 trophies is pretty misleading as that is not what anyone has said. The club do not confirm that total so what should be done is if a number is absolutely a must in the intro, it should be the number of total national titles (60 after removing the 2 unsourced cups). Davefelmer (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:BritishPlateGlass.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BritishPlateGlass.jpg. 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 on 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. Kelly hi! 09:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Gamergate article improvement
Rhoark's been working on a draft re-write. It might be more productive to focus on that which looks like it'll replace the current article eventually. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Empathise with your comments on that article's Talk page. Suggest that there are a number of editors in the In that case, fuck it. I'll come back in another year or so.
category. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you may like the general idea but take issue with some specifics of the draft. While in the process of writing from scratch, there was really no way I could do it except by sticking to my own vision, but now we're in a phase where I can be more hands-off. It would be an ideal time for you to jump in. Rhoark (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Liverpool
If you continue your edits to the Liverpool intro I will have no choice but to report you for vandalism. Your edits are not making any justifiable contribution to the article and you are not only reverting my edits but reverting the edits of others on a regular and persistent basis which is now vandalism. The current version is logical in that it builds up from the city to the county to the city region and ends with the Liverpool/Birkenhead metro area. This is a logical transition from the smallest area to the largest area and it is quite clear that Liverpool and its surrounding areas are included in that. I have no idea what your agenda is here but I believe you are politically driven to undermine the city, its status and its population at any given opportunity. Please desist or you will be reported. Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Koncorde. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Birkenhead
We can't allow edits to slip by disguised as a typo. I have no problem with 'probably' being removed. It just needs an explanation. JMcC (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Recent Edits
It seems as though you have an issue with my style of editing. While I am not an experienced editor, I have made a strong effort to follow and abide by the conventions and rules of wikipedia. Perhaps I am missing something, it is certainly possible. As far as SRS is concerned, I might suggest that you visit the subreddit when you have some time, and you will see for yourself the toxicity I was talking about. I understand that the subreddit itself can't be used as a reliable source, however it might give you a different perspective if you actually saw the level of hate and venom occurring there. Regarding the Rolling Stone article, I don't take something like sexual assault lightly, and I don't feel it is something that should be joked about, minimized or misquoted. That is why I have always tried to support my edits with direct quotes from reliable sources. There are enough vandals and troublemakers on wikipedia, I am not one of them, and I don't believe you are either. I am a little confused as to why you are specifically reverting my edits, when I have made so few. It's entirely your perogative of course, but we are actually on the same team in that we are both working to improve this project. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)