User talk:Ninetyone/Archive 3
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Prohibition of death
Because the citation implies that BBC News confirms his place of death as "unknown", while in fact it doesn't mention him at all. Anyway, I suspect this is one of the cases where the details are unknown to us, rather than actually unknown. The man was a sitting Prime Minister and was assassinated in public - I'm sure the details are on record somewhere. Tom Harris (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Home Office logo.gif}
Thank you for uploading Image:Home Office logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Template cats
Ah ok. Well I'd suggest coming up with some sort of umbrella cat for both or an explanation of the difference on the category pages. I say that because I know from previous experience that things that sound close like that often end up on WP:TfD. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats his third time of vile vandalism on Flardoxs user/talk page
Its really stupid, I cant make up my mind if he just honestly has nothing better to do, he is responsible for the actual original vandalism, or he thinks that we are vandalising. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
DOB in titles
It's commonly used from what I can see and seems to be the only suitable way of disambiguating pages like these. Could you explain why DOBs shouldn't be placed in pages titles? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
speedy criteria
Thanks for your patrolling. As a reviewing administrator, I think most of your tagging is excellent, & I appreciate that you're always notifying the editor who introduced the article. . But just a few things: 1/ It is not a good idea to tag as empty even a radically incomplete article just one minute after creation. some people save after every sentence, and that's permitted. In fact, it has been suggested we change the rules to prevent speedying within the first 10 minutes as incomplete or no context or non-notable. . At present, it's still possible to do so, but it can lose us a lot of good contributions. Some people will simply stop after receiving the speedy notice. 2/ Any assertion or indication of anything that might in good faith be considered notability is enough to prevent a speedy as non notable. If sufficient importance doubted, use PROD or AfD. 3/ For a wordy article, it's useful to check google for copyvio, Copyvios can and always will be deleted immediately if there's no good version. Keep up the good work DGG (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Borusmat
Thanks for your speedy action dealing with the above :-) Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocking of obvious idiot
Thank you very much for reporting him, I have only just got your message and only just seen his personal attack as I was out all day got in just now (6:35). Again thanks alot though appreciated. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No content in Category:National police units of the United Kingdom
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/Information_icon.svg/62px-Information_icon.svg.png)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:National police units of the United Kingdom, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:National police units of the United Kingdom has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:National police units of the United Kingdom, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ninetyone! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Renee Richards(uk)
Hi,
I'm writing in respone to your proposition that the Renee Richards(uk) article be deleted because it violated the Wikipedia Notability for Pornographic actors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Pornographic_actors
The clause states to meet the requirements you must:
Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres.
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.
Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
I'm asking that you please remove the proposition as the subjcet "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" and qualifies the clause for "receiving commendation from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres." - The qualification being she has been featured by Television X as one of the main girls - Television X being Playboys UK counterpart in other pornography genres.
Please check citations and link for other references.
Thanks for your time.
James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmchallem (talk • contribs) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/40px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://pm.gov.uk/output/Page1487.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/40px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1487.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Minister of State for Borders and Immigration. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. SGGH speak! 10:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
MP5
The British Police weapons are semi automatic, they are not allowed to use fully auto so I dont think it is suitable to put the MP5 as a submachine gun because it does not fire in that way.\
I believe someone has stolen your account or hacked it
Why? Because, i dont believe you just made a highly disruptive edit to a recent page by deleting all its files. You might want to check this account to make sure, because the edit was very bad. Thanks for your time, GENIUS
I believe this account is being used by a hacker for malicious purposes because a recent edit to an article i dont quite feel like looking up again was made in which its contents were deleted. Thus, if you didnt do it, id suggest changing your password immediatly or getting a new account. Sorry, but i hate hackers too. GENIUS
Sure, no problem. Ill try to find the article "you" edited.
Thanks for your time, ill let you know when found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GENIUS(4th power) (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Splitting
Fair enough, I haven't come across that convention before but in future I will follow it.GordyB (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
lifeguard template
i keep getting ECs, so i'll tell you here so you can do it when you're done. WP:MOS RE:italics applies on templates as well :) ninety:one 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just copied from another template, so you are welcome to fix it if you like. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
83.200.229.169's edits to Philippine National Police and various other articles
My revert on the article for the Philippine National Police was accidental. The user's technically correct since they do use the MP-5, but I added a note on the article's talk page asking for help about building a properly-sourced equipment section. In cases where he added the MP-5 on an armed forces page (such as Armed Forces of the Philippines), I removed it since equipment's listed in the individual branches of that service. Don't think his actions could be deemed vandalism, though it would have been nice if he'd sourced his addition and been a bit more selective about where he added that info. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
RE: Link Correction
Thanks for that! Regards. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Kelvin MacKenzie
Hi. Thanks for reverting my edit to the Kelvin MacKenzie article. I had a momentary geographical knowledge failure! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Children's Commissioner for England [1]
Hi. You weren't happy with the original article. I've tidied it up now. Hopefully you will sign the Downing Street petition ??[2] SJB (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I've found the links and added them, thanks. For the record, the article isn't one-sided - it's Factual !SJB (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks great and makes up for my ineptitude.)SJB (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to ask, but could you be so kind as to help me improve the presentation of the Timeline here [3] ?SJB (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tidying up. It's actually an article about the 60 years since the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, with the IYOTC as a midpoint. I take your point about cramming so much info into an item about one year, but don't know how else to tackle it. Any advice would be much appreciated. I tried to link it to the USA children's rights material[4], but the progression has been so diverse between the 2 countries (and so hotly disputed!) I thought it best to keep them separate.SJB (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
My removal on the Kosovo talk page
I wish for you to know, since you reverted me, that the comment I removed was for a good purpose. Firstly, I am the victim of an unfair criticism in it which amounts to a personal attack and secondly, if you check the track record of that particular user, you'll find that he/she is not only blatantly disruptive but may not even be real, it is accused of sock-puppetry. Now if there were some half-constructive suggestion in the passage, fair enough, but I doubt there is anything. I hadn't visited that page since the last time I edited it, I only found out about the edit because of a good-faith alert by User:Pathfinder. Evlekis (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- If we agree to differ then that means we are in a state of war with each other. I have just taken out the opening offensive remark and the reference to "mate" which we don't use here, and somehow I don't feel that this user considers me a "friend". Anyone who now restores the comment directed at attacking my personality is being provocative. I hope you are happy with this as it is: if I didn't care what you think then I wouldn't be addressing you directly. If you are not happy then we shall have to refer it elsewhere. Evlekis (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wandsworth Police
Hi Ninetyone that Newham Report states Home Office Forces have no rights to carry weapons or as I would call it Officer Safety Equipment. Cannot be that accurate anyway have you read this link.
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/Home/EnvironmentandTransport/Parkspolice/default.htm
TTFN Mowthegrass (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The Newham Report has an opinion not shared by Wandsworth we have police on our uniforms, titles and vehicles. We are cited as police in committee reports newspaper articles etc. I spoke to some of my colleagues about the WPP entry on Wiki and they questioned why bother, Chrislk02 is editing for his own reasons. Anyway I digress Ninety:one we can edit in circles for ever could you actually cite something of your own instead of making bland references and actually put some meat on your edits? Oh and as you know Wiki rules allow you to use citations whether or not they have been vaidated, so come on lets have something new. At least Chrislk02 puts up half the reason and admits he uses his opinion for his edits.TopCat666 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, they just add a little padding around the list here (Firefox v2.0.0.14 on a Windows XP PC) so it doesn't look as if it's about to be squashed by the titlebar. By all means remove if you really don't like. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- PS There is more reason to retain the <div> when the single list in the template is relatively long; it slightly reduces the relatively wide spacing between wrapped lines.
Tagging
Hi, can you untag that page Capital Artists?? You marked it for deletion a little too premature. Benjwong (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Categorization of Military Police Corps (Israel)
Hi Ninetyone! I have reverted your change in categorization of Military Police Corps (Israel). The article is about a military police force, not a provost. If HotCat was the one that suggested this category, I recomment reviewing such suggestions in the future. I hope there are no hard feelings. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, I did not actually review the category about provosts, and assumed it was about chief military police officers. I will now self-revert. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vosalogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Vosalogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Template:Fisheries and fishing
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that making global changes to a template or article which you have had no previous input to, just to suit your personal preferences, is not a good idea unless you first have the courtesy to raise the matter on an appropriate discussion page. Very disrespectful. So why do it? --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Tagging vs. redirecting
I've found it's simpler and kinder to the original editors to just fix obvious redirect candidate instead of tagging them as A3's. Regards, Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)