User talk:Canterbury Tail/Archive 12

Block

The argument on the O'Neill pages is over what images to include, so all images were removed until an agreement could be reached. However, you blocked me for this, claiming I wanted an image-less version to be my version. Besides being ridiculous, you crossed a line by telling me what I want, as if you could know or as if you have been involved in the argument from the beginning and are aware of what is occurring. Please remove the images form the articles until a consensus is reached. I ask you do it, so you do not erroneously block someone again. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I never got involved in your argument. I never told you anything you wanted. Please point out where I said such things, made such claims and told you what you want. I just warned you for edit warring, and blocked you when you continued to edit war over the topic. I have no feelings, or care, for what version people end up settling on, I just care about not having pages disrupted by continual edit warring between sides. I crossed no line, and I will not get involved in the content dispute in any way. I will however not hesitate to block for disruptive editing and edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You said that the "revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring". That seems to be you telling me what I want. Now, if you took the time to read a little or go through the edits, you'd know the dispute is over which images to put in the article. I took out all images, theirs and mine, trying to deescalate the situation. You blocked me for this. Not because I was inserting disputed images, but because I was removing the disputed content. Now you simply appear partisan, blocking me for taking the middle ground and allowing the other editors to reinstate their version of the article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No you were blocked for continuing to edit war over a topic. I don't know what you want, and I don't really care. That statement I made was a general statement to say that you don't edit war to get what you want. What you want is irrelevant to me, but edit warring is not the way to get it. If my block was unjustified then another admin would have overturned it, however as it is other admins agreed to it when you requested an unblock. It was not a partisan block, it was an administrative block to prevent further edit warring between yourself and the others. I don't care who edits what or for what content, as long as it has consensus. Remember Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert blocked. Any editing disruptiveness, no matter who perpetrates it, may result in a block. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not unblocked because the admin stated I was edit warring likewise, so I suppose you both did not read the discussions. I don't think you are understanding what I am telling you. I was not edit warring. I was removing all disputed content, theirs and mine. Edit warring would be putting what I want in over theirs, them putting theirs in over mine and this process continuing. I removed their content and my content. How is that an edit war? Is that not a middle ground? If not, what is? An argument was over what to include, there are two options, and so i removed both 'til a conclusion was reached. How was that inappropriate? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't read the discussions. I have no reason to read the discussions. You were continually reverting the other editors edits. They were warned, the same as you, but you then reverted again resulting in the block. The discussions are irrelevant to the edit warring. it doesn't matter what content you're restoring, adding etc, you kept reverting and were blocked for it. Not for what discussions you were having, not for what content you did or did not want, but continually reverting other editors. There is a 3 revert limit, you were warned, you continued to revert afterwards, you were blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3rr policy, as I did not revert an article three times within a 24 hour period. I was not warring, I was trying to maintain the medium. Do not defend the block as if you were merely carrying out the 3rr policy, your warning itself states you will ignore policy and revert what you deem fit on your own accord. If you are going to revert what you deem fit according to your personal standards, then it may be germane to know what the issue is being discussed. So, again, if you do not mind, please remove the disputed material yourself, and please note in the comments for the edit that no images should be inserted into the article until the dispute is resolved. That would be the most effective way to end this for now. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your content dispute trailed across multiple articles, disruptive editing of multiple reversions on various different articles, all part of the same content dispute. You were warned about disruptive editing, as where the other users, you choose to ignore the warning by reverting again. 3RR is not a strict must be three reversions policy, disruptive editing, no matter the number of actual reversions, is the issue here. You were edit warring, as were the other users, you were warned to stop, you continued, you were blocked.

If you want some advice, stop concentrating on your block and instead concentrate on the various Wikiprojects or the talk pages for the various articles to build a consensus for your edits. Talk to other users and try to work with them, and they will work with you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are not interested in the middle road? All or nothing? And what is wrong with the comment I made on the talk page? Are we supposed to pretend everyone knows everything? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned I have no idea what the dispute is about, and didn't read the talk page comments. As it's not reversion of vandalism it is a content dispute. There was disruptive editing going on that was threatening the stability of articles and that's when I came in. Canterbury Tail talk 00:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Threatening the stability of articles? What? Anyways, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a dispute before you block people in the future. You as an admin should be promoting neutrality, not one side of the dispute. Blocking me for supporting neutrality only makes you appear partisan. Especially since the editors in question have a history of coming to you for assistance in the past. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not supporting any side of the dispute. I warned people on all sides, and have no problems with blocking the other parties if they continued, but you kept edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is History2007, Scolaire and O Fenian opposing. It is myself, Malke2010, Surtsicna, Tamfang, 206.116.73.178 and Seven Letters in support. Also, the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology also stated the illustrations are legitimate heraldically. The consensus was to add the images, yet the three in opposition do not want to comply.

They went to one talk page, then another, to one notice board, then another, then a WikiProject, then another talk page all trying to find one discussion that would side with them. The have taken the argument personally, so they are not listening to other editors, the community nor the facts; they are simply looking for one page that they can claim out weighs the rest as they argue over policy and revert edits to stall until they can find what they need. They wanted a source, I provided it. They called for another, I provided that. They ignored the sources.

So, while they are persistent and reverting my edits and the edits of others earlier on before the supporters grew tired of it all, it is not an edit war as you continue to insist. Six against three, with a WikiProject on my side. My edits are not disruptive, but abiding by the consensus. The fact I was elimiateing the images was an attempt to calm down the opposition and alleviate some of the stress of the argument that continued despite the three being overridden. So what else was I supposed to do? Please, tell me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail talk , I think User:Xanderliptak doesn't understand the sequence of events that lead to the block. I don't think he's trying to be argumentative here, just pointing out that he saw editors shopping and beating the bushes for supportive arguments, and he gave up and withdrew the images to neutralize things.

User:Xanderliptak, it is clearly edit warring. You're trying to argue against obvious diffs here. The admin is right here. Your block was correct. I can understand where you would be confused about it. In looking across all the articles and the edits/reverts that took place, I don't see a gaggle of innocents editing there. Unfortunately, you didn't stop and that's edit warring. I know you did supply sources, as requested, and that you were ignored. But rest assured everybody sees that. Don't forget, that everybody watching sees all of it. Make sure what they see you doing from now on is within policy. It takes longer, but it works better, and then you won't have to walk the plank again anytime soon.Malke2010 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice sought

Hi, Could I seek advice on how to deal with the Leo XIII situation? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple have commented at Leo XIII, but History2007 still dominates the argument posting a response to every comment and even interpreting what each posted comment means for his side. The conversation with History2007 is now going the way of requiring the Vatican to post on their website information, images and approval for him, History2007, to use to verify each and every coat of arms image on Wikipedia. This is getting a bit out of hand to require sovereign nations to post in accordance with one Wikipedia editor's standards. Please see the break and see what a Catholicism contributor commented. It was also agreed by myself and another editor that a compromise where the SVG image, being scalable and plain, would be best suited for small depictions, while the ornate version would be better suited for larger depictions. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This needs to go higher. I'm not qualified to arbitrate this one. I suggest making a post on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents about this. Be as neutral as you can, make your point concisely and without too much comment on the other users. It does seem to me to be a case of I don't like it, but I'm not 100% sure. Canterbury Tail talk 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor who refuses to engage

Could you please cast a cold eye over (what appears to me) the contentious editing pattern of User talk:MFIreland. One long-term editor has apparently quit contributing due to frustration. The drama has been steadily building for some time across a range of closely related articles. The individual concerned may genuinely not be aware that their 'style' is tendentious, as I believe them to be new here and not a re-incarnation. I'm getting to the stage of letting these articles spiral to the point where their content reflects the 'official version' per the Irish Defence Forces official website. I'm not in the habit of bleating to Admins. on content disputes; discussion at User Pages usually suffices, but the ed. in question does not reply. These articles could do with some neutral 'oversight'. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And it begins again...

As a contribuator to the issue can i being your attention to this: Ireland Collaboration - no need for the whole island. I stupidly listened to RA and decided to go the diplomatic route (as i prefer diplomacy) by going to collaboration rather than arbitration, however the same arguements have been given even though i have shown their holes - and thus given even more evidence which is even more "holey". As a contribuator to the wider issue i would like your contribuation on this. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pope Leo stuff

Hi. :) This situation is so messy. :/ I've been watching it as User:Malke 2010's mentor and it's all amazingly fraught for a disagreement over which images to include.

Anyway, I'm popping by to let you know that your "opinion" (though clearly labeled) may have been misunderstood as some kind of administratorial decision, per action and edit summary here. I've reverted to no image pending a consensus (particularly given the still-active WP:RfC on the situation listed at Wikipedia talk:Images#Requesting comments) and attempted to clarify to Xanderliptak. The last thing we need is another edit war prior to a nailing down of consensus. If I've misunderstood your position, please let me know. :) (It's such an oddly heated argument; it seems several of the contributors there are highly invested in the issue.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your right, my opinion has been misconstrued as an arbitration decision. Canterbury Tail talk 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your post was unwise for an admin. To name the section "Arbitration" suggests that you have the powers of an arbitrator, which I'm fairly sure you don't. To talk about "a topic ban for everyone involved", in a very brief edit-war that never even reach three reverts, was a rather exaggerated response to say the least - would you really ban me from all articles on historic Irish families and all articles on the papacy because I disputed a couple of images that are tangential to some articles? And then to say that you'd "like to here [sic] a sensible story for why these are or aren't acceptable" suggests that your mind is already made up, and anyone who disagrees with you had better be very careful. Perhaps you ought to give some thought to how you wield your broom in the future. Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is welcome. Fact is both sides asked me to get involved in it, though I didn't really want to. Also the topic ban bit was something I was considering bringing up on the Admin noticeboard for everyone involved as this was an edit war that was raging across many articles, not just this one, and causing a lot of disruption (though I was only going to ask with regards to heraldry, not anything else.) And no my mind wasn't made up, I just didn't want to have to wade through pages and pages of chatter when a succinct summation is more appropriate. A sensible story (maybe story is the wrong word) either way meaning something based on Wikipedia policies (as I mention elsewhere) rather than I don't like it, or I like it and don't like the original from both sides. Canterbury Tail talk 11:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, just to be sure I have it right: if two or three editors who disagree about a random image get a bit heated and revert each other a couple of times on, say, half a dozen articles, this is "an edit war...raging across many articles", and the appropriate and obvious remedy is to topic ban "everybody involved", even though you have only warned two editors about edit-warring and one of them (remember which one?) immediately stops editing the affected articles? Yes, I certainly think you should bring this up on the Admin noticeboard, because it looks to me like a radical departure from accepted practice. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And no, I didn't say your mind was made up. I said that your post, taken as a whole, gives the impression of a mind already made up, and an implied threat of admin wrath towards anybody who dares cross you. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hux Software

Hi. You deleted Hux Software. Are you able to delete Hux software on the same basis? Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Stalwart111 (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(Feel free to delete these notes)

Blatant spam, COI pushing, recreation of deleted material, using Wikipedia for advertising purposes for their non-notable company and non-notable software. Canterbury Tail talk 02:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics

Hi. As you made this revert, I thought you may wish to add to discussion at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Lyrics. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Errored Alteration

Hi. You recently told me of my mistake regarding Jessica Origliasso's Wikipedia page. I would like to thank you for doing so. There has been some confusion, on my behalf; when I named the linked article The Veronicas' instead of The Veronicas' and saved the page, I quickly became aware of my mistake. I went to edit it, and recall myself as correcting said fault. I now believe that I didn't save these changes. Apparently the same thing happened when editing Lisa Origliasso's image caption. I apologize for this. Thank you for sharing this information with me again. I will try not to make the same mistake in the future. Angel Chante (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

News.am immediately recreated

You just deleted News.am. It was created less than 4 minutes later. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Derry

You maybe interested in the discussion going on at McKownville, New York and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Bjmullan (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

May one ask? Why does someone based in Kent have such an interest in poor aul' Derry?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.245.233 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And who says I'm based in Kent? Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Belfast Buildings Preservation Trust

The information on the BBPT website is relevant to the information on the wikipedia article as information on a charitable organisation of which I'm a staff member. It is not a copyright violation as both the information on the BBPT website has been written by me and the Directors of the Trust asked me to include the information on a Wikipedia entry. I'm not technically minded and I'm not sure of the correct way to format a Wikipedia page, but the Trust owns the copyright to the information on both the Trust website and Wikipedia page, having been written by a Trust staff member and approved by the Trust's board of directors.

Therein lies the problem, you cannot own the copyright of something on a Wikipedia page. If you notice every time you edit you get the notice

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.

This means whatever you submit to Wikipedia becomes open copyright for all to use and change. If you don't want to give up your copyright you cannot put it on Wikipedia.

Anyway we unfortunately have no evidence that you own the copyright to the original text, you'd need to follow the instructions on the notice to WP:OTRS to prove that, but you wish to retain copyright then you can't put it on here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. We are happy for the material to be made available on Wikipedia. My wording was unfortunate in my original message. I was simply trying to say that by creating the Wikipedia entry on the Belfast Buildings Preservation Trust, I wasn't infringing on copyright because I wrote it and the Trust considers the information to be in the public domain. I have e-mailed to notify that we permit re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, but as I said, I'm not sure of the correct way to format the Wikipedia page and get rather confused by the raft of information available about placing information on the site. I merely wanted to update contact details for the Trust and add some information regarding a completed project. Cullyhanna (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The formatting of the page is fine, that's not an issue. The technical use of the Wikipedia markup is perfectly fine. It's just the copyright content that is the issue, plus the Conflict of Interest. If you've sent a mail to OTRS, then they will contact you and there will be some back and forth communication until they are happy. Once they are, then the tagging will be removed from the article and it can be displayed again. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Alojzy Adamczyk

I see you are going over articles with speedy tags, came across this one on New Page Patrol, it appears to be a very bad translation of the Polish Wikipedia article on the same person. What is the procedure for articles like this thanks Mo ainm~Talk 21:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I came across that one and didn't know what to do with it myself. I've tagged it with a notability tag, as I'm not sure if it's really a notable subject, and it can be taken from there. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll make an attempt to try and re write it but will probably have to loose bits of it, hopefully someone will come across it who knows more about him. Mo ainm~Talk 22:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IMCDb

Just wanted to point out that I don't really care whether the IMCDb is included in the IMDb article or not. I merely responded that, since you had used the non-existence of the IMCDb as criteria in your explanation for deleting it, that it was not, in fact, non-existent and therefore should not have been removed for that reason. The reasons you subsequently supplied certainly suffice, but they weren't the reason you first gave. Peace. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No it was the non-existence of an article as a see also, not the non-existence of the website. The see also was linking to a Wikipedia article that didn't exist. "(rv non-existent see also)" is the see also doesn't exist, not the website. Canterbury Tail talk 17:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Got it. Thanks.Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

STO

Added a lot of content to Star Trek Online in Gameplay section. Seeing your name crop up in the History, I thought I'd invite you to edit/smash/apply Turtle Wax to anything I got wrong. :D Cheers. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Canterbury Tail. You have new messages at 69.181.249.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Game Plan (company) article

I would appreciated if you not jump to add speedy deletion templates to articles that are still being worked on. Quickly adding speedy deletion templates to newly created articles doesn't allow for a new article's creator to continue fleshing out/expanding the article's content and needlessly adds an ugly template to the article that the article creator isn't allowed to remove. Thanks. Bumm13 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

An article in the mainspace should contain such notability requirements already. If an article is being worked on, it really should be done so in userspace. Mainspace is what everyone easily sees and therefore should only contain finished articles. Articles should be developed in userspace and moved to mainspace when ready if they cannot be finished when created. I knows it's a pain, but really it should be fleshed out before being placed into the mainspace. Canterbury Tail talk 23:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but like one single minute later, getting templated, is not helpful. There's nothing to say that articles must be fully formed right off the bat, or that they should be created in user space first. I'd say templating after 24hours is more reasonable because at least a creating editor will have completed the first flurry of editing. --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Canterbury Tail on this, Bumm13 is an admin and is aware of what is required for an article so shouldn't really be creating articles in mainspace that require work to bing them up to required standard. Mo ainm~Talk 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Healingherald.org

Hello Canterbury Tail. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Healingherald.org, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

UEA Brand Management

Hi, you just removed my UEA Brand Management page from the site, which is understandable. However, is there any chance I can have what I wrote back via email? If so, my email is tubbyslunchbox@msn.com. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubbz15 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern Irish Airports

I have reverted your edits, this is not because I added these templates, but because this has been accepted for some period, ever since there was a change in the Airports of Ireland template. It is acceptable as, those who may search the airport may want to see other relevant airports in the locale. If this is going to be changed discuss first, not just because one other person has brought this to your attention... at one airport.--NorthernCounties (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you already reverted? --NorthernCounties (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

On a sort of related issue, could you deal with the addition of a flag to {{Airports in Ireland}} please? Having that on a template that is all-Ireland is asking for trouble and I would not wish someone to think me twice removing the Tricolor is a 1RR violation, especially when I am removing it. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that is an issue O Fenian. As it does incorporate the whole of Ireland; I see no issue with the removal of the Tricolor, and definitely no violation.--NorthernCounties (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no issue with its removal, only that someone might consider a double removal to be a 1RR violation. And the irony of breaching 1RR to remove the Tricolor is not lost on me.. O Fenian (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed BritishWatcher has taken action on this, Tricolors removed. It appears Jamie2k9 has been "tweeking" {{Airports in Ireland}} alot recently. I'm going to add it to my watch list. Problem sorted for the time being I suppose...--NorthernCounties (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When I removed the templates it was because they all said "Airports in the Republic of Ireland" and had the Tricolour on them. Then I realise what had happened, the long standing template had been altered with no consideration for the repercussions of altering such a template. It had been reverted to it's stable configuration after so I reverted my removals. Seems someone is objecting to the long standing template. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Advertising Sockpuppetry

Hi,

A couple of what I suspect to be sockpuppets have been blatantly advertising a coupon site on pages related to advertising and shopping. Their names are Aksasdusk and Hskhdaksu, I think giving them standard user warnings is pointless as they're just going to keep pumping out new accs. I'm a fairly new editor (at last count I have under 200 edits) and I'm not sure what course of action to take with this. Thanks. Deftera (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RIRA

It appears that O Fenian is engaged in a concerted attempt to censor information relating to convicted terrorists and in particular, the self-confessed former second in command of the RIRA. O Fenian's motives are somewhat obvious since he has consistently edited articles in favour of Republican terrorists. I have no doubt that his conduct is contrary to Wikipedia policy on naming such terrorists given that several reliable sources have been given. --87.114.85.253 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the IP is a sockpuppet of The Maiden City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Mo ainm~Talk 11:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh not him again. You'd think he'd learn. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposing community ban is a proposal to make the de facto ban official. O Fenian (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury talking newspaper

I've put a proposed revision of this entry on the Talk:Canterbury page. Vidoue (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Blader Runner

I'm not entirely convinced this is the correct place to post this comment but I made some changes to the Blade Runner page (along with a number of connected pages) that have been reverted. I intentionally changed the spelling of the name 'Rachael' back to the correct 'Rachel' as it appears in the scrolling credits and the literature that comes with the latest DVD release. Is there anything you can advise to deal with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.220.115 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you've made a mistake somewhere. The spelling is Rachael. It has always been Rachael. The movie credits say this, the documentaries say this, the inlays with every release I own say this, Future Noir says this. I don't know what release you're looking at but every reliable source states the spelling as Rachael including the movies credits. What release do you have that has it spelt differently to the rest of them? Canterbury Tail talk 22:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Advertising Remark declined: GM Infotech

Hello Canterbury Tail.

As expected your talk page contributes of various deletations and contributors revolting against deletation. I have no personal/views or any dispute against you. I am fairly new and been a house-working female. So you cannot mark my article as me been employee of that company without any evidence nor you have right to say that. I usually spend my time reading articles. But to be honest, Local Businesses and specially Marketing Companies or New Software Development Companies are usually disguised been advertised from Wiki. Wiki has no-follow implemented on it, so no backlinking can be done on outer web resources and I doubt Company which has marketing business will use wiki as boost and not using Facebook, Twitter or more active websites easy to socialize and prosper. Secondly Wiki its for providing knowlege to people, you cannot expect each and every article as advertise just because it has local standards of work. The company listing and references are provided from Google Maps, Reviews and Internet identity providers such as Whois/GoDaddy. I wrote an article on GM Infotech with research, as it is always confused between GM Infotech and GM Motors in Mumbai and just to make these two working companies different it was needed a wiki background. I am not been blatantly advertising secondly, the reference links in the article are good enough to show fair bit of company's work pattern and its business procedures. The newly created article needs contribution or merger rather than deletation. Wiki don't provide draft system, so some articles might take time to build and people review them and get in some more relevant data with referencing. The article which I wrote wasn't loosely held. A paper articles which are published in local news-papers can be converted to Wiki for knowledge sharing which by far help global views. The motive of the article is growing Techonology in India and Information Technology sector. A private company addition and business work process and its history with growth is what encyclopedia is about. It might look as advertising but because of work format that company posseses. I'm a fairly new editor and I'm not sure what course of action to take with this. Thanks anyways. If you think that article is solely used for advertising then feel free to re-write that article removing all cutting edges which you find been advertised by removing unnecessary links or changing the format of articles to make it look more wikipedian rather than using an easy shortcut to delete. The business lisiting is also published in JustDial which is one of the India's vastly used TeleList Services you can call their helpline for more details. In developing countries, you cannot expect every encyclopedia knowledge to be listed with mass background. Thanks once again. I appretiate if you again give your review, crafting on article rather than just delete. — User_talk:Alice.michelle16 08:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Hi Canterbury Tail,

You deleted my article, Comedian (Watchmen), before I could really even start it. This is my first time doing an article on Wikipedia and I didn't realize that once the page has been saved, it's out there for everyone to see. Can you please restore it so I can finish it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comedian86 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WI clans

Hello, I'd appreaciate if you didn't interfere with my Warfare Incorporated editing, for it is relevent, and I wasn't finished editing it. Random Pyromanic (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The people who play the game are not relevant or encyclopaedic, and have no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only for encyclopaedic content. Canterbury Tail talk 23:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I was posting the clans involved of the game, not people, is that a problem?68.186.12.60 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

They are just groups of people who play the game, they are not encyclopaedic any more than guilds in World of Warcraft are. The only time such groups are encyclopaedic is when they are professional games player teams who have won awards and international competitions in professional gaming leagues such as MLG. Canterbury Tail talk 10:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

British Isles

In weather terms, 0°C = 32°F, 10°C = 50°F, etc. So, in comparing one temperature with another, 1°C = 1.8°F, 10°C = 18°F. The other editor was correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, gotcha. I should have paid more attention, I see what it's saying now. You're quite right, my fault. Canterbury Tail talk 00:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hi Canterbury_Tail,

You have given me a warning for edit warring but I am not sure why. I have not broken 3RR. I am aware that there is an edit war. There are 2 proposed changes to the Belfast page, which seem to have consensus, add clarity and improve the article. There is only 1 user against the changes, O_Fenian, and it seems that is is a major POV to remove anything British. Not everyone is aware that Ireland is made up of 2 countries, but this user is working on the assumption that the reader is already well informed. That being the case the reader would have no need for wiki. Help me out here?Afterlife10 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You get warnings before you break the 3RR. Also be aware 3RR is not a hard rule, if editing is disruptive you can be blocked without violating 3R. I am aware of the user you mention, and while he does come down on a certain political side in his personal politics, on Wikipedia they are usually quite balanced and productive. My advice, wait and see what happens on the talk page and don't make any more edits to the page. If consensus is for it, then let another user make the edit since it's causing some controversy. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We'll you only have to look at the talk page yourself to see that there is consensus. On the Belfast page I have made 1 edit a day. O_fenian has made 3 edits on that page in the last 24hrs already. The edits I have tried to make add clarity and info to the content. They are common sense edits.O_fenian seems intent not just on the Belfast page but on other pages of removing anything british or Northern Ireland related. And here he is intent on misleading any reader in the hope that they will assume that the country and the island are the same. This needs to stop. Can you make the change then on my behalf?Afterlife10 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As a new user, you may not be familiar with our policy regarding meat puppetry. Mind how you go now. RashersTierney (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, although I don't believe to be guilty of it here. I am pretty sure Canterbury_Tail can make his own opinion on the matter. How do you prove Meat puppettry though? Just in regards to the Belfast article. It seems that O_Fenian had put forward a motion not change the article, then 3 other account users agree with him then disappear from the discussion. It is almost like he sent them a private message or something saying, here lads I need you help here. Its all speculation but it seems to happen quite a bit at a number of discussion.Afterlife10 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I count 4 editors against the change that keeps being made. The fact they cannot be bothered to keep replying to the same tired points does not negate the fact they are against the original proposal. You do not gain consensus by flogging a dead horse to the point nobody else can be bothered replying than magically claim you have consensus. O Fenian (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect timing! hmmm....(smirk)Afterlife10 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Afterlife, you already attacked O Fenian and me claiming we were socks... (DUCK) what did check user come back with? Oh not socks! No personal attacks please. =] --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And where and when did this apparent personal attack take place?Afterlife10 (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your previous comment. Now please, stop wasting my time. --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(smirk)...dry your eyes.seriously! If you think that is an insult......Afterlife10 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cessna 172

Thanks for reverting my ref deletion. I totally missed that line and my search engine search of the whole website missed it as well! Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I normally wouldn't revert you, but it looked as if you'd actually copied the wrong link and checked the wrong page. Canterbury Tail talk 02:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping a watch-out.Just too close to bed time to be editing! - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Couple of confusing things

Hi,

Two queries: Not sure how my user page was a personal attack as it didn't name names. Secondly indeed that IP is shared between users - it's dynamic, and I've changed IP! So whoever gets it is going to get a bunch of irrelevant messages. Is that really sensible? I haven't reverted anything as I await your response Egg Centric (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's an attack on other users, where you are calling other users sad. You may not name names but it's still a personal attack against other editors and expressly against Wikipedia rules.

As for the IP thing, IPs change, people get messages on the IPs all the time that don't pertain to them, however we shouldn't be redirecting IP related items to user pages as they aren't always the same. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok - why are articles like Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you permitted then?

Anyhoo, not overly bothered one way or the other, just curious. The IP thing is potentially a concern though... please would you consider deleting its talk page - ideally with a summary letting any curious users know where to find me - rather than having the restored version? Cheers Egg Centric (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Li Yangbing

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. Out of common courtesy, please remember to check on the notability of topics before proposing their articles for deletion, and allow the creators of new pages enough time to put their work into an assessable state before assessing it. Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

However any edits in Mainspace should be of the level to be publicly viewable in a complete state at time of creation. If an article is under construction by a single user, and the first edit doesn't meet notability, it should be constructed in Userspace before promotion to Mainspace upon completion. An article seen in mainspace should be tagged if it isn't up to standard. Canterbury Tail talk 22:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack?

It isn't directed at anyone. Egg Centric (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, having read the policy, I believe that you are mistaken. If you want to get consensus that it's a personal attack then please do so and I will remove it. I have no interest in deliberately breaking policy but nor do I wish to be over cautious.Egg Centric (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You called 1% of editors pathetic, it is an undirected personal attack against 1% of editors. This is a no no on Wikipedia. You may not use your talk page to attack other editors, specifically called out or otherwise, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Comment on content, not editors. Using any page to make negative comments about other users is not tolerated, this isn't a social networking site or a soapboxing forum. If you're at all concerned about whether something you say on Wikipedia is or isn't a personal attack, refer to "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Implying that 1% of the editorship is pathetic is very definitely covered under this. So please, comment on content not on editors. Canterbury Tail talk 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Egg Centric (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to, we can all have differing opinions. However I'm sure many administrators and editors wouldn't agree with you on this one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if a few wouldn't, I'm not trying to suggest you're unique! However, I am equally sure that consensus would be on my side. Incidentally, per this do accept an apology for one of my recent edit summaries... Egg Centric (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd find it offensive as anyone could be in that 1%. It seems like a very poor way of having a dig at editors without actually naming them. Whether or not its aimed at a general 1% or not of editors, dropping it into a statement or edit summary would more than likely mean your trying to subversively state those who disagree with you or whoever made an edit are amongst that 1%. At least thats how it can be very easily interpreted. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Traveller AR Removal

Hi,

I just wanted to get in touch with you regarding the edit (removal) of Traveller AR from the Traveller Roleplaying Game page. I have tried to address all your issues and hope you find this acceptable, if you have any other queries I would be happy to answer them.

"rv non-notable self promotion of an item that doesn't exist, the website tells us nothing, and may never appear. No references other than dev site which contains practically nothing"

Non-Notable Self Promotion While the product may not be notable to many, the people in the Traveller community who we have told have been very excited by the news. The port to the iPhone has been talked about in closed circles as a way to revamp the Traveller brand. The game itself is one of the few 3D MMORPG iPhone games, and the only 3D Space MMORPG iPhone game. It is also one of the few iPhone games to include augmented reality.

This is an official Traveller franchised game so I do believe that it is a notable addition to Wikipedia.

Item Does Not Exist The game does exist, and it will be available for preview and testing at SXSW 2011 in Austin.

The Website Tells us Nothing There are well over a dozen pages on the website telling you about the game, the history of the Traveller brand, the ships and characters in game, in game controls, augmented reality in game, etc. To help clarify some of the things here we have added an 'info' box on the front page of the site.

It May Never Appear It is set for release in Summer 2011, it is funded, the Traveller Licence has been acquired and it will be shown in a beta version to selected media outlets at SXSW 2011. We have a Beta version planned, this is set to be released in the near future.

Reference - Dev Site Only We have chosen not to release much information on this until the unveiling at SXSW 2011. At SXSW a press release will be issued to the RPG/Traveller community as a whole.

If you have any further questions, or advice on changes that should be made I the text please get in touch, if this answers the reasons you removed the article please can you undo the removal?

For Reference, our booth is at http://sxsw.com/interactive/screenburn/arcade/exhibitors?action=exhib_show&id=S11-3705 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver.Whitham (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Kind Regards Oliver Whitham ingZ inc.

Any update on this?

Oliver.Whitham (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver.Whitham (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to be used for self promotion, and when I last looked at your site, immediately after you advertised it on Wikipedia, there was no content to show anything. If you can prove it's notable you can try again, I don't control the article or anything I'm just another editor like everyone else. See what others think. Just be sure to read WP:COI & WP:Advert. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did try to cut out anything promotional, I just used the base facts about the product. I read the article on conflict of interest, and this would probably apply to me in some respects, however I did try to avoid using any sales text, or promotional material. The website is probably the best resource out there for further information on Traveller AR at the moment, although several larger media outlets will be visiting our booth at SXSW, so there should be some more info out there in the next month.

I will re-write the text, and I do appreciate your input, I do't particularly want to step on any toes, I just want to make sure the right info about our game gets posted.

Do you have any advice as to how I can prove the notability of the game (being the most recently acquired licence of the traveller brand I would assume it was relatively notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver.Whitham (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:MFIreland

Hi, I'm the original blocking administrator for User:MFIreland. I notice you restored my block notice to his talk page and prevented him from editing the talk page.

I was tempted to do this myself after he blanked my notice, but after perusing numerous discussions in the WP:ANI archives, I saw consensus that any blocked user is free to remove such messages, and it's uncool for an admin to lock out the talk page from a user who does so.

Careful reading of WP:BLANKING shows that blanking warnings and block notices is permitted. MFIreland just can't remove any declined unblock requests. He has no declined unblock requests, so he's free to do what he wants. Just thought you might need the same clarification I got yesterday, and reconsider your recent action.

MFIreland has an established history of removing any messages from his talk page that put him in a negative light. Nothing prohibits him from doing this, however objectionable I may find this practice. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah fair enough. I wasn't sure on the status of removing block notices, and have been looking myself. I'll change it back. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing warnings and blocks etc. is permissable, however whilst it hides it from plain sight, never forget that its still in their talk page history and that a block log will always show any previous blocks. Warnings are usually easily found in talk page histories thankfully to most either stating warning or having a date. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we will all agree the MFIreland could be a better editor and discuss more and edit war less but surely a one year block is just a bit much? Bjmullan (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block him, so here isn't really the place for the conversation. If you have an issue with it you should take it up on the Admin noticeboard really. Canterbury Tail talk 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

Hi, I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Claim of copyright on public domain material has no validity when the material is simply transcribed into digital format. The text I pasted was published exactly that way more than a century ago, and no additional or unique creative additions were made to it at the website containing the digital text.

In practice, thousands of Wikipedia articles were initially created based upon direct copying from initial copies out-of-copyright encyclopedias such as the 1911 Britannica and the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Obvious such articles can and should be improved upon and brought up-to-date, but the old articles are clearly a good way to start them. For a typical example, see here.

For the Jewish Encyclopedia, this template is normally used when a significant amount of text is copied. I had planned to add it when creating the article, but didn't have a chance at that moment. Dovi (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Also see here, including regarding the online version. Dovi (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Lab Collective

The Lab Collective are a theatre company based on Lewisham the the website is www.thelabcollective.co.uk. I would like you to reverse this action.

Codename Quarry

Hi My names stephen clark co founder of the band Codename Quarry, my friend and bandmate Peter tried to make this article i admit he did make some mistakes AKA insutling you and posting things that werent true, but i have been trying to edit this article to make it into a proper article about our band without slandering anyone or putting in false information (i cannot account for pete) but he said you banned him from editing it, so that just leaves me, and i would like the chance to make it into a proper article which is what i was trying todo when you said it was a blatant hoax, which it is not if you had checked out myspace you may have seen that we are actually a band, please undo your descision or atleast let me have the chance to write a proper article about the band.

Thanks, Stephen Clark. Stevec375 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I Also do not appreciate being ignored, i understand you have a job todo.. but you deleted my article with minutes of my saving it.. and you cant find one minute to reply to me? Stevec375 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You created a hoax about a completely non-notable band, faked links to BBC site pretending they were references about this band when they were about Muse. If an article on this group is to stay on Wikipedia it has to be notable, referenced and without any [[WP:COI|conflict of interest. I recommend reading those articles to determine if this group is liable to be notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, which from my searches they are not. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Work

I'd Like to congratulate you on all the great awards and recognitions you have received. I think you are an important part of Wikipedia. I want to say sorry about how you were vandalised 61 times. That is a shame that people do things like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickulus (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

deleted "Talk:Code Red (metal band)" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)

I'm the owner of the text, why did u deleted it? Why do I have to put a different text for my band on each website? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DtmiRRor (talk • contribs) 09:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

US spelling in Pregny-Chambésy

Hi,

The older templates like '{km2 to mi2|3.24}' default to US English. The later templates like '3.24 square kilometres (1.25 sq mi)' default to British English. If you read what User:Ezhiki says, that's what he was telling me. He was telling me to preserve the spelling (by adding 'sp=us'). If you look at his and my talk pages, you'll see we've worked together on this and we decided that I had to go back and add it.

It may seem strange but Wikipedia guidelines don't permit me to set the spelling by country. If it did, I would have done it. The WP:Engvar guideline says non-US spellings are only required for articles related to non-US anglophone countries. I didn't make the guideline. The article Pregny-Chambésy had US spelling before and after the Lightbot edits. So it's actually a good example of how the procedure and code was updated in accordance with User:Ezhiki's reasonable request. I think your revert of 4 June confused it so I've updated the procedure and the code so that won't happen again. Thanks.

The text 'sp=us' highlights the issue and that allows people like yourself to see it in edit mode. Perhaps that's a good thing because it'll get resolved one way or the other. You'll see Lightbot didn't create the US spelling in the article. You'll have to look back in the history to see who did. I hope that clarifies it. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate what you're saying and do realise the spelling was there beforehand. I know it's not exactly easy when this is a bot updating things. I appreciate your taking the time though. Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

British Islands

The term "British Islands" does not include Ireland. Please refrain from changing. Skyifictionable (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making disruptive edits against Wikipedia consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 19:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "British Islands" does not include Ireland! Try typing it into Wikipedia and see what comes up! Skyifictionable (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

British Isles is the term that I would use, although I accept that Britain and Ireland works too. Free Bear (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" mean the same thing, even though "Britain and Ireland" may seem that it does not include islands such as the Isle of Mann or the Channel Islands, it actually does and is being used. I prefer the term "Britain and Ireland" as it does not suggest the Ireland is a British possession like "British Isles" does. I ask you Canterbury Tail to refrain from changing the term from "Britain and Ireland" to "British Islands" as this is not accepted amoung the Wikipedia community. Skyifictionable (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No the accepted term on Wikipedia is British Isles, and there have been many many many long conversations, arguments, discussions etc over this. Do not change these references without community consensus as continued editing along this manner is considered disruptive editing. Also please note, your personal preference has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on verifiable evidence and information, not personal opinion and viewpoints. Canterbury Tail talk 18:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that the accepted term on Wikipedia is "British Isles", but you had removed my edit which was a change to "Britain and Ireland" (which is not controversial on either islands) and wrote "British Islands" which is totally incorrect. "British Islands" refers to the islands which are British. "British Isles" on the other hand includes the islands which are Irish. Also, thanks for the info on my page, much appreciated. Skyifictionable (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reasons for the change was controversial as you were changing it to suit your own POV which yiou've made very clear. Also "British Islands refers only to the UK, IOM and CI" sounds very stupid for is the UK made up of entire islands? No. Because Northern Ireland is part of island that has a seperate sovereign state other than the UK. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Type "British Islands" into Wikipedia and it wont sound as stupid. British Isles and British Islands are to different things. Look it up. Skyifictionable (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Skyifictionable is correct there, that is the UK government definition of the term. Canterbury Tail talk

Reverting an edit

I made a minor edit to the Starship Troopers wiki noting that the word racism in the Allegations of racism section should more properly be species-ism. You reverted my edit. Will you please let me know what your objections to the edit were? --DWS101344 03:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was a comment on the article, which should be brought up on the talk page, not an addition to the article topic. Canterbury Tail talk 04:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still new at this. ````

Edit summary on Starship Troopers

This is a bit of a quibble as the content of the content of your edit was fine, but I thought I'd point out that your edit summary in this edit is mistaken (as well as being somewhat less than welcoming.) The specific location where Rico grew up was never stated, but in Chapter 10 after Rico is informed that his mother has died in Buenos Aires, the book continues "I thought that both my parents were dead — since Father would never send Mother on a trip that long by herself." Thus Buenos Aires is explicitly not their home, instead we are told that it requires a long trip to get there. --Noren (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Historian19

Good call. Those edits did ring some almost forgotten bells. RashersTierney (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, always the same version. He must keep the version in text form on his machine somewhere or has a historical one bookmarked. Canterbury Tail talk 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder)

Good call on the revert; I'd overlooked the time period. Should've just done that myself. Thanks. Yunshui (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I wasn't calling your edit vandalism, but the one before. Canterbury Tail talk 23:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I realised that. I assumed a bit too much good faith with my edit, and was trying to create a compromise rather than just reverting, but you're absolutely right, it was just plain Ireland at the time. Guess our anonymous vandal contributor hasn't been reading his history books either. Yunshui (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

golly gosh - blade runner related threat

I made one change which was reverted. I made a different change which was reverted. I reverted that change. Then you threaten me with 3rr. Golly gosh, and people wonder why some people get upset about Wikipedia. Also, shouldn't you, as a participant in the discussion aks someone else to threaten me with blocking? Or doesn't there exist a concept of conflict of interest on Wikipedia?My name is Mr Smith (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no COI in this, I am not involved in the edits to the article and any editor can make a warning to another user if they are at the point where it is required. Also don't come to people's talk pages dripping with sarcastic comments, it doesn't look good for supporting your position. If you would like to come back with a more civil perspective I'm willing to discuss it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

golly gosh, sarcasm is bad. Regardless, I've made my point, I did not threaten, you did. And then you repeated the threat. I am trying to improve the article, and make it clearer. I am taking into account other people's comments and then editing the article. It's not like I am making the same mindless edit over and over. My name is Mr Smith (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss your edits in a civilised manner, and editors on the talk page have explained to you the meaning of the passage and you have ignored it against the consensus of the community. You are not adhering to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and have been asked to stop, yet you persist in making changes against consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 14:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting those changes to the Blair Waldorf article. -- James26 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Road Sign

Hi again, its been awhile. No real worries on the sign, and I'll go along with your reasoning on it. It was being used to illustrate (in a visual way) its use in the context of the text that is in the section. It dose also raise a bit of an issue with the text were it says that "with the form Derry preferred by nationalists" since it shows a distinct preference by the Irish Government also. What do you think yourself? Anyhow, nice to here from you again, regards, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of ViolaSoft?

I wasn't advertising it at all, I was more criticising it than advertising it Werehog7 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You were advertising a non-existent product (no indication on it's site it actually exists), possible hoax, for a piece of software not available, and even if so that is completely non-notable and discussing forums that don't exist. Canterbury Tail talk 12:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It does exist, Mediafire deleted it, the forums do exist, and I guess it is non-notable. Werehog7 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the site you linked to. No download, no forums, just placeholder pages. Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The forums are at http://violasoft.forumotion.com/, and they look existent to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werehog7 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah gotcha, the page just didn't link properly to them. Anyway, it's still non-notable software. Canterbury Tail talk 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Crubeen

As the author of the page crubeen, I have corrected the origin. please stop the vandalism. If you are unhappy that I have corrected my contributed material

John6547 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1) you do not own the page, all material is the property of the project, once you contribute anything it is no longer yours and you release it for anyone to edit. 2) deletion of correctly referenced material is vandalism, especially when you're deleting valid information because you disagree politically with something (as it appears) 3) you have not corrected any origins, you've removed reference to Northern Ireland for your own personal reasons. If you continue your vandalism and disruptive editing you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am only correcting the details I entered, as the author of the details I have chosen to correct them. if you have any better personal knowledge of the Crubeen Folk group please share. I have made no mention of any dislike of the term Northern Ireland. You have made that up. Can you please stop being a bully by using threats.

John6547 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note you do not have ownership of those pages, once the details were changed from Ireland to the correct Northern Ireland you started deleting them, despite the references to support them. That is vandalism, not corrections. Canterbury Tail talk 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

all the recording and production is done in Dublin, Ireland hence you see EMI Ireland not EMI UK, details have being updated to correct data

John6547 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bands are still from Newry in Northern Ireland. A section has been opened at the ANI to discuss this, and I encourage you to make your views and side of the story there. I won't be offended, you can be as open there as you like, I took it there for third party opinion and oversight. It's all just business, not personal. Canterbury Tail talk 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruiari Og's

I have tabelled an AN/I against Ruiari Og's and as an administrator who has been involved with this editor i'm notifying you of it. I would notify JohnChapple as well seeing as he's been mentioned, however he introduced himself to it.

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep rounding you the troops Mab!--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Making accusations about the impartiality of administrators now Ruiari? Canterbury Tail was involved in the John Duddy article which you've highlighted in the AN/I. You do read the guidelines of AN/I's don't you? All involved editors must be notified of the discussion. JohnChapple already introduced himself to the discussion so he didn't need notified, however as Canterbury Tail has been brought into it he needs to be notified to represent himself. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

I came across this comment, where an IP editor stated "I believe it is time to do what we Irish do best".

I asked them where they making a threat, to which they responded "What do the Irish do best ? You will find out ."

I'm percieving this to be some form of threat of disruption, or worse. Unfortunately the IP appears to not be static as they responded with two differnet IPs. I removed my response from Sarah777s page to the IPs pages per a request from Fmph. They are User_talk:109.76.128.244#Threat and User_talk:109.78.222.14#Threat. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing really that we can do. If a lot of IP addresses start causing disruption we can block ranges or semi-protect pages if we have to, though I'd rather not do the latter. Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up on possible future disruption. I'll keep an eye of matters, though i think they intend to make themselves and their actions pretty obvious anyways, so would probably not need to. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaelic Athletic Association county colours

Please note that the WP:IMOS only refers to the geographic county. In this case the point of discussion is not a geographic county but a GAA organisation that is called County Derry. In this instance the County Londonderry reference to the geographic county is not relevant. An organisation can call itself whatever it likes regardless of other factors. For example we can have the County Derry GAA covers County Londonderry, and there isn't a conflict. Similarly we have the Apprentice Boys of Derry and not Apprentice Boys of Londonderry. Canterbury Tail talk 12:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Got it. It doesn't say "team name" or "organisation" though, it says "county". JonChapple^Talk 13:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does say County, but it's not referring to the geographic county in this context but the GAA county. The GAA counties may match up with the geographic counties, but they do refer to the body that oversees the sports in the geographic county and as a result are organisation names. If they ever however refer to the geographic county, it needs to be called Londonderry. Canterbury Tail talk 18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Again its being reverted " 05:57, 14 September 2011 Jonchapple(talk | contribs) (35,983 bytes) (Undid revision 450383262 by BlackWhite77 (talk) no such place) " Again by the same exponent . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.46.142 (talk)

This was on the Derry GAA page, not the Gaelic Athletic Association county colours article. It is entirely correct to refer to County Londonderry on the former, as the sentence in question is talking about the geographic county, not the association. I haven't attempted to rename the article to "Londonderry GAA". JonC^Talk 12:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the parishes controlled by County Derry GAA overlap into a seperate state , pushing a POV instead of a fact again .Bring to my talk page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.46.142 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And County Londonderry + those parishes = "County Derry", does it? I'm done discussing this. JonC^Talk 12:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re;Image 10 Navy.JPG

I did take that picture, and willing to believe you are right. It was difficult to puzzle which building was list, and it doesn't surprise me that I may have made a mistake. - SimonP (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Re; William H. Kennedy

William H. Kennedy is included in official online UKC history. I am uncertain why he was removed from Wikipedia. I will appeal if you remove it again. Thanks Jakepotterukc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakepotterukc (talk • contribs) 14:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate on the talk page why you think a redlinked person is notable enough for inclusion. Also please explain what you mean by appeal. Canterbury Tail talk 18:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

BAE Corax

As the creator of the BAE Corax page, and just in case you don't have the page watched, I've put a note on the talk page about Raven being a different aircraft. I've given a link to an image of Raven on BAE System's website.Graham Fountain 16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)

Thinking of doing something potentially monumentally stupid.

Hi, I was hoping you could provide some advice on something that I’m toying with. Quite a while ago I was looking at the Babylon 5 article and noticed it was rather long while, a little surprisingly, at the same time didn’t really include any information on various production elements such as the costume, music, special effects etc. But did include a fascinating piece on what accents the actors used. ; ) I also noticed that at one point it was proposed as a possible featured article!? I spend quite a bit of time on the computer due to work, but there’s also periods when I’m sitting playing Tetris waiting for print jobs to finish. So a while back I started looking at essentially rewriting the article from the bottom up.

I’m no editor and can’t write for toffee (obviously), I also don’t have access to any of the print publications which could provide useful information. Could you take a look at the Costume and Music sections that I’ve typed up in this sandbox. There rough (and incomplete) but should give an idea of the direction I’m taking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Minsk59/sandbox

Ignore everything else. ; ) the other content is more for giving me an idea of formatting and a place to hold some rough notes, bits of information and ideas. Basically, am I going off on a tangent, and the content is not suitable for a wiki article. If so that’s fine, and I’ll start playing Solitaire as I’m getting sick of Tetris. If the general idea is sound then I have no problems in spending a bit more time attempting to put more content together, with the hope that more experienced editors will then duly rip it apart in order to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, and perhaps add further information, before even considering the remote possibility of replacing the existing article. Basically I’m not so arrogant as to attempt this alone. ; )

BTW. I realise interest in the B5 article is low, for various reasons. I’ve approached yourself (and two others) as I noticed you’ve edited the thing a number of times over the last year or so, and appear to know what the hell your doing. ; ) But if I’m barking up the wrong barge poll, please let me know. If you know of anyone else who may be interested in passing an eye over what is being put together, or who may have access to printed reference material, that would be most appreciated as well. Cheers. Minsk59 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Canterbury Tail. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 04:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: National anthems. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of people from Ottawa

Someone (me) finally responded to your question from a year and a half ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Canterbury Tail,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

County Londonderry

You might have a point but equally I think people had a point at Derry GAA. The edit goes against the consensus at the MOS and I think you should get agreement before making the change again. BRD. Bjmullan (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. It's not a point I feel strongly over or am going to edit war over or anything. The main reason was changing it makes the sentence read really strange, I wonder if there's a better way to word it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only does it read oddly, it's also now wrong. King James made a point of naming the new town Londonderry to reward those who built it. The sentence should, at the very least, say "(officially Londonderry)" or something similar. JonC^Talk 14:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your change of Derry to Londonderry in Samuel Brady inadvertently altered a quotation which I have restored to say Derry. I then changed your correction to be an explanation enclosed in brackets. Your change illustrated the dangers of automatic editing.Virzyg (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I never noticed it was a quotation. Apologies for that. Canterbury Tail talk 23:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland - what's going on?

Could you inform we on what's happened here? I'm planning to put "country" back in, but what was the last text? Was in "part of.." or "one of the four countries"? Sorry, I can't look at the discussion - it's always just socks and repetition.

RA has never been anything different - he's never given up, while always labelling what is in reality his own obsession a "LAME" argument, like he does on British Isles. I think it's been hugely damaging to Wikipedia - I've seen it happen on really bad news days re the troubles too (ie the peace we've found stuttering). As far as I can see, nobody else on WP has spent more time in this area at the exclusion of anything else, even Gold heart and the BI sock farms.

If I ever come to take any action on RA I'll bring up all the things I never said at his RfA - where I had little time to even reply to people (which I think he could see by my absence beforehand - he ran his "invitation for comments" page for over a year I think, and was hardly editing at all before he went for it). I'm being absolutely serious here - if he's not careful he could be the first admin to be de-sysopped based on evidence from before his ill-attended RfA. There's loads of it, including fabricating an Irish potato famine graph, to claiming he didn't IP-edit in the area to try and rewrite this stuff (ie as an IP and afterwards too - which he switched a little on - but not enough). Then there's his absolute refusal to allow both a non-CI and CI British Isles in the diagrams (he wasted a lot of my time on that when I was merely showing the whole story - but he'd always been determined that the term doesn't make any sense in his push to replace it, and he always has done that as forcefully as possible). And there is the more-recent Wikidictionary push for his favoured (and mostly archaic) "Atlantic Isles" - it's all things like that. All at the expense of anything else on WP. This is all off the top of my head - there will be more.

I'm very serious about this - I'm happy him being an admin if he keeps away from structurally attacking the UK, but in this climate I'm just not going to accept that from happening from within Wikipedia. Apart from Wales, he is not interested in any other similar non-ISO countries being called "countries" around the world at all (ie when the sources are so strong). Why did they call it the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" if Northern Ireland was just a 'division' of the UK, as he keeps insisting, and the article now ridiculously says it is? The whole idea was to create a new country (which it clearly is - it didn't exist before and has every attribute needed including cultrue and ethnicity) broadly similar to Wales. It wasn't a 'temporary' thing, whether Ireland recognised it or not. They didn't always express it in terms of "country" in those days (and it was politically sensitive too as Ireland obviously wasn't happy about it). Wales was largely called "England" then - obviously we call it a 'country' now (ie the huge British majority in Wales do - though he's not 100% happy about Wikipedia using that). Above everything the sources couldn't be much stronger: if we don't respect sovereignty in terms of labelling (ie UK.gov amongst many others) we may as well pack up and go home.

I'm tired of his broken-record and frankly-misleading "it's a no brainer" rhetoric on this and British (Atlantic) Isles/Channel Islands too, I when I've had nothing but solid arguments and non-polemical sources over the years I contributed myself. I've hardly been able to even look at it over the past year or two as it wore me down so much. As I'm sure you know, there will be enough going on in the coming years on UK identity without properly neutral admin around to handle it properly. I know that he doesn't support the UK, and I know he's not neutral in discussion - how can I AGF?

I didn't expect him to carry on quite like this since the RfA (I hoped he wouldn't be able to), but I do honestly think it was the main reason he wanted the status. I'm entitled to think that, as even before his first RfA it was 99% his one editing area (I include troubles and BI). They should never give adminship to people like with the background in areas like this, as it's simply asking for trouble.

So just to let you know. And to clarify that 'AGF' went out of the window for me about 6 years ago when he went IP-only - directly after an argument with me over him canvasing a change to British Isles - ie him breaking clear canvas rules. Which is another thing he hid from his Rfa - the real reasons why he suddenly went IP-only in the first place.

I don't know if your the best person to communicate this to or not, but I see you are administrating there, and for me national sovereignty is an area that is simply bigger and more important than Wikipedia. Some things in life are. There are people out there who would say WP is subject to a kind of online terrorism - by which I mean misusing internet-based information areas to undermine the fabric of a state, in view of removing the state. It's not easily definable thing, but Wikipedia has been lax here, and could well pay a price for not being careful enough in its procedures. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your too late Matt. You had your chance and you blown it. An editor has come in and made a load of changes now. 212.183.128.208 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, those recent edits all undermine the fabic of Northern Irleand as part of UK. Some cases its in your face, but other edits are devious. 212.183.128.208 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nadine Coyle

Not only is Nadine Coyle in the catergory "female singers from Northern Ireland" so is here talk page, and in the parent Irish catergory. I dont know how to remove them, is there any chance you could? I really dont have a Scooby Doo. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland protection

The recent protection has had the unfortunate effect of removing the indefinite semi-protection. Do you want to put it back now, or wait till we've had dozens more edits like this before we go back to how it was before? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There I think that's done, let me know if it's not right as I've never played with the pending changes options before. Canterbury Tail talk 22:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean pending changes, I thought that had been largely scrapped as a failed experiment across the board. I just meant put the indefinite semi-protection back on, but if pending changes can still be used that might be a better idea to see how it goes. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Pending changes you might want to remove it actually. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay I misread the logs, I've re-instated the semi-protection. Canterbury Tail talk 22:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Undertones

Both your edit summary and the fact that you seem to protect the article very quickly may be inappropriate. You are an involved editor and I think in future you should let other Admins take the lead. Bjmullan (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly blatant vandalism, it's been going on on that article and a lot of other musician articles lately by a roving group of IP addresses. Those categories are categories specifically for artists from the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland, as many editors have pointed out and reverted, not just myself. Canterbury Tail talk 23:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why have you reinstated Home Nations in the Walter Winterbottom category vis a vis the defeat to Hungary in 1953. Like it or not the first defeat for the English national side was in 1949 to the Republic of Ireland. This is clearly hard for some to accept. The Republic of Ireland is not a so called "Home Nation" therefore the reference is incorrect. This is not controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyguinness (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Walter Winterbottom

Why have you reinstated Home Nations in the Walter Winterbottom category vis a vis the defeat to Hungary in 1953. Like it or not the first defeat for the English national side was in 1949 to the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is not a so called "Home Nation" therefore the reference is incorrect. This is not controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyguinness (talk • contribs) 11:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the Home Nations article, the references there etc. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FIX Protocol

I appreciate the fact that you are a prolific contributor to Wikipedia. However, you clearly know little about FIX, FIX Protocol Limited and our industry.

It is true that some of the external links on the FIX page probably should not be there. But individual links should be challenged, giving sound reasons for each link as to why it should not be present.

For example, you deleted the link to FIXwiki which is owned and managed by FIX Protocol Limited (FPL) itself - the official industry standards body.

You also deleted the link to FIX Global which is the official journal of FIX. It is true that it is a separate legal entity, but it is nevertheless closely linked to FPL. Camerojo (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I know quite a lot about it. And most of those links are not applicable on Wikipedia per WP:External links. Most of them are just links to parsers people have created (not-notable.) Usefulness of links to a reader is not the purpose of external links on Wikipedia, instead they are to expand upon an article and provide details not provided in the article. Wikipedia is not a source for a collection of links, for usefulness or otherwise. Forums, wikis etc are not generally valid links, nor are various software to parse, or otherwise view the data. Additionally links with can be located from the main webpage of the link most associated with the article in question should also not be included in the external links. Please read the WP:EL policy. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I did read the WP:EL policy before making my posting. As I said, I agree that some of the links should be removed. Rather than argue each individual link, I will argue the case for the two links that I mentioned above.

FIXwiki is an official FPL alternative to FIXimate (which you chose to leave in) in that it exposes the details of the FIX specification - clearly expanding on the Wikipedia article and providing details not contained in the article. I would therefore argue that both FIXwiki and FIXimate are appropriate external links. Quoting from WP:EL "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

FPLGlobal may "sell magazines" but it is also FIX Protocol's official journal, provided free of charge to all members of FPL.

Many people new to FIX come via this Wikipedia page. One of the problems for new users is where to start. The Wikipedia FIX page is a great place to start, and once they have read the article the two natural next best places to explore are FIXimate/FIXwiki for details on the specification and FPLGlobal to learn about the FIX community day to day.

Can we agree to reinstate FIXwiki and FIXGlobal? I will leave others to fight the cause of the other links. By the way, I am a director of FPL. Camerojo (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking FIXwiki isn't eligible because it's linked directly off the main FPL page, but I won't argue against it. If you think FIXGlobal should be included, then I'll also not remove it again. Good editing. Canterbury Tail talk 01:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Zinc Finger

I saw that you undid my last change to the Zinc Finger page. The reason for my delete was that all of the information was more appropriately placed in the zinc finger chimera page since it was talking about methods for constructing engineered zinc fingers, which doesn't belong on a page just talking about the structure itself. I moved the material to the zinc finger chimera page and replaced it on this page with a briefer intro to that. Do you disagree? Vramasub (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No I don't disagree. When you make edits, please use the edit summary at the bottom of the page to explain what your edits are, that way people won't thing it's random vandalism deleting content but will see there is a good reason for it. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Derry

I've posted some references at Talk:Derry that shows both "Doire" and "Daire" are referenced in scholarly sources. Can you take a look and maybe we can get a consensus as to any changes we can make to the article. --HighKing (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as the references are reliable I'm okay either way. I only reverted the last one because it was actually referenced. But I'll take a look. Canterbury Tail talk 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria Infobox dispute

Canterbury, a block on Bulgaria page is OK, however why did you pick a side and leave one of the disputed versions in? The 2006 version is the only one that lasted for years, and in my opinion it should be the one to remain until this is resolved. Can you kindly revert to that one? Ximhua (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't pick any side, I protected the version that was there at the time. Unfortunately no I can't revert to another version as this is an edit war, not a set of vandalism, and reverting to a previous version is indeed picking a side. Also Admins always protect the wrong version. Canterbury Tail talk 14:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I expect an immidiate access to the Bulgaria page. Also, I want to know why Tourbillion's version of the infobox which goes against all rules for consensus, is protected. There has never been a consensus on his stealthy revision of the 2006 article. On what basis do you protect his version and reject the one which actually is considered as a standard in all Encyclopedias, including Encyclopedia Britanica??? It is very disturbing that you as an admin are taking a side in this discussion without having the slightest clue about the topic. Furthermore, your not in a position to qualify my posts as offensive or not civil. As long as there are no vulgar words the sharp language is absolutely permissible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espor (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So Canterbury, you're saying that the reason you kept this version is simply... timing? Is it Sep. 9, that this block is expiring?

Please, keep in mind that Troubillion has already declined to participate in Requests for Mediation and other attempts to resolve this. Also, to Espor's point, a simple check in Encyclopedia Britannica on the Beginnings of Modern Bulgaria will quickly show the reality of the situation: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria Ximhua (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am taking no side in the discussion, and I will not restore access to the article so anyone can make an edit to their preferred version. And yes, the version currently viewed is simply down to timing. I care not for the contents of the article, but I do care about the disruption this warring was causing to the project. If I hadn't protected the article then people were going to be blocked in very short order for edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest you unblock the article and block the edit warriors. It is a much better solution. Maybe a 24hrs rest will bring senses back. Would you consider this? Ximhua (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There are too many people involved in the edit war, including yourself, for that to be a viable action. If you wish to bring it to the administrators noticeboard to get others looking at what is going on in the article then you can do so. Canterbury Tail talk 22:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, I doubt that we are going to resolve this dispute with just talk and without external pressure. The tactic of Tourbillon is to protract the discussion as long as he can so that at first sight we cannot reach a definite consensus. I talked also to other editors who know him for a longer time and they agree that hes playing a game. He is not really interested in the arguments of the opponent and in finding a solution. Instead he desperately wants to keep his revisions and engage in nonsensical discussions only in order to deflect you from removing his gross edits. The point is that he is not a typical vandal. He doesn't use offensive language, he looks on the surface a good admin. When you start reading his edits however you slowly start realizing that this guy is a smart vandal who vandalize topics concerning Bulgaria in a stealthy way. This is his little trick. He doesn't wage open wars, hes a covert stealthy admin with very questionable intentions. You start understanding his intoxicating presence in WP only when you have prior knowledge on his topic, if you are a layman on Bulgaria you might miss his dishonesty. That is exactly what he is counting on-your ignorance. Hes also the most active editor. What astonishes is that he got a free pass to undertake multiple changes of the 2006 version of the and all of them are bad. Is this a coincidence???? Please do not confuse my honesty with you with uncivil behavior. I am not rude, I just cannot stand deception and snake behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espor (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, I haven't read your warning. Ok, I will try to stick to that absurd rule. Keep in mind that articles are written by humans and humans who have bad intension do not produce good articles so the personal qualities of an editor and his job as an editor are unfortunately intimately related. Once again I will try not to use language that might be seen as disrespectful. I did not read your first warning.Espor (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

what if I am engaging in a constructive conversation but the opponent turns out to simulate and circle around? Are there consequences for him or we have to go on with the theater forever?Espor (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion you wanted, having degraded to personal attacks and accusations of paid editing, seems to have outlived its usefulness. Perhaps if you could close it or something similar, so we could move on? I'm not sure what the procedural thing to do at this point is. CMD (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to check in on it or oversee it. I think it needs to go to the Administrator's noticeboard for more eyes on it and someone to supervise the article. Canterbury Tail talk 21:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The opposite side does not respect the overwhelming arguments that were presented. I think that the conversation is highly un-constructive and does not help resolving the issue. Therefore I would ask you to revert the infobox to the consensus 2006 version, since there is no and never has been a consensus on the current 2012 version of the infobox done by the editors Tourbillon and CMD. I also would remark on the low rating of the Bulgaria article after the changes initiated by these users. Thank you in advance.Espor (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Rose Report

I'm trying to get some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland#Rose Report on the "Rose Report" which has been listed for several years on WikiProject Northern Ireland as an article in need of creation. I've had the request for information up since 20 August without response. At least we should be able to identify what it is so we can see if it really belongs on that list. Even if you don't know what it is, saying so would be a help. If we get enough of those, that will at least answer the question about its importance. Thanks in advance. --Bejnar (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"British and Irish Isles"

Amidst an interest in topics wide-ranging as Ireland–United Kingdom relations and Pevsner Architectural Guides, I presume you've also heard of WP:GS/BI. ;-) Just sayin', --RA (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I notice one was added by yourself, without reasoning to use that term rather than the term of the page it redirects to and is accepted as the usage on Wikipedia (I know there used to be a page you needed to discuss this on but that seems to be defunct.) And the other was specifically altered last month and has been reset to the way it was for long standing, and again avoiding the redirect and going back to the generally internationally and Wikipedia accepted term (and incidentally the term the guide themselves use.) Two alterations of redirects, that are not long standing and one of which was recently changed deliberately into a redirect rather than the generally accepted term on Wikipedia, is not a systematic addition or removal of the term British Isles.) Canterbury Tail talk 02:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That was the term used by the original author (me). It's pretty obvious that you then went looking for back links to eliminate (there was only one more). The latter is where "systematic" arguably crept in.

I'm just sayin'. And I'm as much tongue in cheek in saying it as anything else. I'm not wholly serious. --RA (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. We usually see eye to eye on most things on here. Maybe I should bring up a rename of Derry :) Canterbury Tail talk 11:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL. No! Please! That's OK!!

On "British and Irish Isles" (I don't know if you really care), I found an intresting quote last night from the journal of the St. Andrew Society in 1907:

It is true that, in the past as in the present, there are many instances in which the adjective "British" has been restricted to Great Britain. But if there is any map which designates our archipelago "The British and Irish Isles," we have yet to see it. To narrow the application of "British" to Great Britain would make that adjective scarcely less offensive to Irishmen, if applied to Ireland, than the term "English."

Who'd've guessed it would taken a century? :-P

More seriously though, you were right to change it in both instances (taken in isolation at least). --RA (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I do find it odd that Discover Ireland, based in Dublin, uses the term British Isles. It's been used as sources here for some articles to support the term, but I find it really odd especially when many say the term is never used in Ireland. Anyway, that's a discussion with no end and I have no energy for any of it anymore. Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not so odd.

FYI, it's based in Dublin and Coleraine. Tourism Ireland (aka Discover Ireland) is all-Ireland body. It's funded by the ROI govt. and the NI exec. and reports to the North/South Ministerial Council. But I wouldn't attribute that as the reason.

I think the a sounder reason is because it (or at least it in the guise of Discover Ireland) is a marketeer. It will say anything to get the punters in. What ever is softest on the ears for the person hearing it.

Another reason is to not to believe the hype. This isn't a "dispute" on the scale of the "Sea of Japan/Korea" or "Macedonia". This is a word that never fit the world it wanted to describe (as the quote above illustrates) ... but at the same time, no other word has as similar a grip on vocabulary. Consequently, some ignore it, some make do with it, some see nothing wrong with it, some like it, some use other words, some make up new ones. --RA (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey there, just a wee message regarding the change you made to MV Isle of Lewis. I do apologize for deleting a bit of it and not explaining why. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia articles. I do believe that the information I changed on the article was right. I changed it but this time I have provided a reference for evidence and also explained why I changed it. Hope all is well.FergusFingers talk 15:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. It's just the previous edit you changed the numbers from a version that had a reference that supported it, to a version without a reference. Now that you've provided a reference for the new numbers all is well. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Derry cfd

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_19#Category:County_Derry
• User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Derry_cfd

Please see the above. - jc37 01:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe all the categories should be deleted as they are duplicate categories and serve solely to promote the use of a term for the county that isn't agreed upon on Wikipedia. All the categories can be better served under categories already existing for County Londonderry, or by having categories named for Derry GAA not GAA in County Derry categories. Canterbury Tail talk 02:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to note that at the cfd - jc37 02:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

fête

Do you believe Quebecers pronounce "fight" for the word fête ? Fête (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, I don't know any Quebecers that I speak to. Canterbury Tail talk 21:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

See here please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te69JK28DDo Fête (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Because Quebeckers pronounce "fight" for the word fête. Fête (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good for them. What has this to do with my talk page? Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

HU-GO

Hi, and thanks for your attention. I was creating the HU-GO page and I accidentally click the "save page" button instead of "show preview" button. The page can be deleted for now, I will be publish it when I am done with translating the HU-GO page in Wikipedia Turkish. Final page will be look like this: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/HU-GO Tsoyozen (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

found what you were looking for

http://www.webcitation.org/5w6v3lCn2

this link says it clear as day, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex differ from the original manga and film.Lucia Black (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for making Uttarakhand a GA.

Ayanosh (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Censorship

First you ignoring my questions but i answered yours, then you making threats on my user page "warnings" for no good reason at all. WHERE IS THE "PERSONAL ATTACKS"? 91.145.38.53 (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No censorship, and personal attacks all explained on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, its heavily censored! deleted posts and warnings all over the place, you better stay out from the moon hoax discussion if you cant judge which one who's right and which one who's wrong by visit the site. Or better, resign as admin? using admin actions when out of arguments must be against the rules? 91.145.38.53 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've not used any admin powers in this discussion, and I'm not involved in the moon landings argument other than to try and stop the arguments getting out of hand and the attacks against other editors other than a single question post raising concerns. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Canterbury Tail, [1], [2], [3]. A block might be justified at this point, as behavior seems to be deteriorating. The threats to intentionally mislead are worrisome in particular.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

well ok then, but other idiot admins has 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I will not block a user because they have no respect for admins, they have the right to their beliefs and opinions in that regard. I am willing to block users for disruption or attacking other users however. It does look like it's headed towards disruption if the IP user is declaring they will deliberately insert false information then yes a block would be in order. Canterbury Tail talk 15:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Different rules for different people

- as i already knew, but this is just more proofs: "You keep using the word "launched" - I'm not sure you know what that word means in the context of aerospace engineering" - by WegianWarrior, and no action has been taken by any admins (especially not from you)

making it personaly by claiming that i dont know that a "launch" is, is ok i see. but when i asked someone who did indeed misleading the viewers "why misleading the viewers?", i was ofcourse warned right away

wikipedia admins are a inbreeded rotten ppl! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep petty remarks like that, accusing people of being "inbreeded", up and you will be blocked. The comment was over the clarity of the word launch and the fact you seemed to be using it in a different manner to everyone else. Not a personal attack, that was a comment meant to provide clarity and understanding. Don't take everything so personally. One other thing to be aware of though, you do not have a right to be able to edit Wikipedia, it is not a democracy, it is not a bastion of free speech, it is a provately owned website. In practice it is open enough, but it relies on the co-operation of editors and adherence to the tenents of WP:Verifiability and Wp:Reliable sources. Also take into account the WP: No original research. Wikipedia isn't a place for people to push their ideas and opinions, but to collect those of reliable references sources. Also a core component is also that is based on verifiability not truth, something that is on occasion hard to get your head around. Everything must be capable of being backed up by reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For propaganda causes there is, a place for people to push their ideas and opinions! the entire moon hoax article is a misleading propaganda and is based about ideas and opinions. With "reliable" (LOL) sources you meant Windley's and Plait's websites!? lets have a big laugh! (clavius and bad astronomer) those sites are based on their own opinions and misleading bullshit propaganda - I have proven many times that these trolls are proven liars, but still the moon hoax article frequently using their sites as a source. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that they are liars? I mean not based on your own research or a video of another person calling them liars but actual scientific proof? I ask because I've watched some of the videos you've linked to and the scientific inaccuracies in them I find quite alarming. As a rocket scientist and physicist personally I find the lack of any scientific principle and process to the fraud evidence in the videos makes them very easy to categorically dismiss. They seem to concentrate on picking and choosing small sections and don't present them in a scientific manner and bring them completely out of context. However that is my personal opinion on those videos, but that doesn't matter because I'm not a reliable verifiable third party source. Unfortunately the credibility of the producer of those videos doesn't appear to be either for purposes of scientific proofs proving or disproving the moon landings. Canterbury Tail talk 03:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Clavius and bad astronomy should be removed as sources, why? lets start with clavius

Jay Windley agreed that a total of approx 1400 (minor) solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions but then he going on and writes: "The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions" which he says here: http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html - but thats a pure lie. A total of 30 major solar flares occurred in several missions between Apollo 8 to 17. By reading the data and compare with the time of each missions the result will be:

Apollo = major flares: 8 = 4 , 10 = 5 , 11 = 1 , 12 = 8 , 13 = 2 , 14 = 4 , 15 = 1 , 17 = 5

The source for this is from the NOAA themselfs: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/index/comprehensive-flare-index/documentation/cfi_major-flares_1955-1980_by-size.txt

Jay Windley also claims that rocks doesnt melt at 5700 degrees F: http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html "We collected some desert rocks and dust and heated them with an oxy-acetylene torch (5,700 F) for five minutes. They did not melt, and they were only slightly discolored."

Besides from this two proven lies, he going on and misleading the viewers by comparing the LM to a Boeing 747 airplane(!) and using that as a excuse why the LM didnt leave any blastcrater on the moon. Theres alot more but this is what i remember here and now 91.145.38.53 (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've checked those sources and the data and Clavius has really badly worded his response to that question. Yes it appears some minor major flares occurred, though low in intensity, they were not directed towards the Earth Moon system. He wording is incorrect it would seem, but his intent is correct. The vast majority of flares don't come our direction and therefore have no impact. But yes, he could word that a lot better I'll grant that but it doesn't make him a liar, just poorly expressed. As for the melting points I can't comment on the experiment he did, but rocket launches don't leave blast craters in the launch pads (and I've seem plenty) and the temperature of an exhaust drops off extremely rapidly once it leaves the combustion chamber (which is well above the exhaust itself.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor major flares?! either they're minor or major, in this case 30 major flares! WIndley said no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions and he was wrong - period. He is a proven liar and his source should be removed because he is misleading the ppl. His laughable claim that rocks doesnt melt at 5700 degrees F is getting debunked by geogolists on the internet 91.145.38.53 (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There are many classifications of flares, you can be at the bottom edge of a major flare in one classification system, or at the top range. Things don't into just one or the other as magnitudes are different in every case. And as noted it seems he mis-stated and mis-worded his response to that question, no flares came our way during that period. A flare going in another direction has no impact on us and is irrelevant. Still waiting on those reliable references specifically proving he is a liar, your word isn't sufficient and from the Wikipedia perspective he is considered a reliable reference. Remember though that Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about being able to reference it. If it was solely about truth we wouldn't have this article in the first place, but there are enough people in the US that believe it didn't happen that it can be reliably sourced that people think that and produce material supporting their views, hence the article. If you want references removed because you think someone is a liar you need to provide references to that effect, and do so on the talk page of the article, not here. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What a load of CRAP! stop with your silly excuses, the NOAA site lists the MAJOR SOLAR FLARES, do you have any source to prove that NONE of these 30 major flares was directed towards the moon? Windley is a proven liar and you protect him and his false propaganda site. I already showed some links in the talk session for the article but as you know, it got censored and i got warned, and later blocked for 2 days(!) for what? for fighting for the truth? someone who says there was no major solar flares during the apollo mission is a LIAR - PERIOD! someone who says that rocks doesnt melt at 5700 degrees F is a LIAR - PERIOD! ask any geogolists! using this proven liar as a sourse is total unaccetable and if you dont remove his sites, i will 91.145.38.53 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to look at those flare charts and see that they're not pointed towards the earth/moon system based on the co-ordinates for the flares. Remember space is very very very big, the Earth / Moon system occupies less than 1% of 1% of 1% of the possible target for a solar flare (you can easily do the math yourself to determine if a flare can come this way, basic area of a sphere calculations with the sphere being 93 million miles radius.) The rock thing yes, that has to be wrong, all known rocks melt much lower temperature than that, but that has nothing to do with the moon as a thruster won't have the temperature outside the immediate area of the nozzle to melt rocks. If it did it wouldn't be a very good engine which has to generate thrust, not heat. And again, please have these discussions on the appropriate talk page, talking on my page isn't going to change anything on the article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The rock experiment did not claim that the melting point of rock is above 5700°F. It tested the claim that a hot fluid stream (an oxyacetylene torch in this case) impinging on a mass of rock for a limited amount of time would convert the rock to lava. Obviously, in any real scenario the average temperature of the rock will be significantly lower than the temperature of the torch flame. This is consistent with experience if you have ever used an oxyfuel torch to cut steel - it takes some time to get the steel up to the kindling temperature even though the flame is thousands of degrees warmer than the temperature needed, because heat is conducted away into the mass of the steel and radiated away into the room. Rock and regolith on the moon was exposed to the exhaust stream (much cooler and less dense than a torch flame) for just a few seconds. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

How can i improve the article when its being protected by admins? even if it contains misleading propaganda and pure lies, admins will block the one improving the article (with improving i mean remove the lies) 91.145.38.53 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Stopping referring to things you disagree with as lies and propaganda is a good start. Simply point out the inaccuracies in a more neutral manner. For instance stating that Table Top Observatory is owned by JPL and therefore cannot be considered a third party and therefore should be removed is a perfectly valid comment and request for edit. Be calm and rational and others will listen to your perspective, which is a valuable one. Use volatile language like propaganda and liars and people won't. If an article is locked from editing then try Wikipedia:Edit_requests and follow the guidelines there for someone to make the edits on your behalf. However do so calmly and in as neutral a manner as you can, backing it up with references not attacks against others (editors or sources.) People won't be inclined to help you when you call their position propaganda, just like you wouldn't be willing to assist if people called your point of view or belief garbage or yourself a liar (note I'm not referring to you as such, just making a point on interactions.) So be neutral, provide references and people will listen and it can stir up a proper discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: In the Japan article, the infobox seems to break kanji display

Here: "the full title of Japan was Dai Nippon Teikoku (大日本帝國)" the character 國 displays correctly. LittleBen (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: User:Fiazhaider

Thanks a lot! --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was a no brainer. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Gaz_and_Gaming_Fan

Hello, I noticed that at User_talk:Gaz_and_Gaming_Fan, in the "Spelling &  " section,   items did not display. I changed these items to make them visible. David F (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)