User talk:Topperfalkon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Topperfalkon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 13:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)



Get on with your coursework >_> --[kazikame] 10:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continuation from Talk:British Army[edit]

(Continuing from QEII and the British Army Website below) --Topperfalkon (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the previous discussion made on the aforementioned link, I do agree with the reservations some have with the lack of any degree of patriotism by government to be somewhat worrying. I also am somewhat disappointed with the government's poor management of IT resources, and poor web presence. The sites themselves are often well enough laid out, but there's nowhere near enough interconnectivity and there's no real proper advertisement of most services. The landmark government 'hub' page,, is poorly laid out and doesn't seem to connect well with other government departmental websites. Hopefully that can be changed at some point, when the government decides to hire competent IT staff.--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I do like the way the DirectGov site is meant to bring everything together even though it fails, but with that ugly orange banner, it makes you think why not Red white and Blue. The separatists running Scotland understand the importance of symbols, its why they have flooded everywhere with the Scottish flag since they came to power 3 years ago. Their incompetence with websites is matched by their failure throughout the departments. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) lol i have rather strong feelings on these matters and i could moan about it for hours if given the opportunity =). They spend £100,000s on website designs but forget to include a little thing like the union flag. This is not just a problem in the UK though, the left in America does the same. Take a look at the Department of Justice website before [1] and after [2] lol. The Canadians make an effort [3], our culture media and sport department could not care less. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DoJ's new website actually looks decent though, and emblazoning a huge US flag on the header would probably ruin the theme. Enough patriotic references are there to suffice I feel. Our websites are just abysmal.--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think its better with the colour, rather than just black. They could of just kept and image rather than having it as the whole banner, but its all gone. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Too many different departments with too many different websites. No one has a clue, therefore all the sites are very different and have no connections. I think it must be some kind of running theme in the UK government/MOD. I received four identical letters a few years ago apologising and informing me that my personal military details were included on a disk in an MOD laptop stolen from a car in Birmingham. It fills me with so much confidence that ANYONE could have my personal details including my address, my service number, my next of kin, their contact details etc. Can you imagine if someone had called my next of kin, knowing all of my personal details, informing them that I had been in some kind of accident?! Anyway, I'm getting off topic(!) - are the UK Forces embarrassed to have the monarch at the head of the armed forces? Other than learning about how the Queen is ultimately at the top of the military rank structure, we learnt very little about that kind of thing in basic training. And as it has now been pointed out; it has been removed from the British Army website. I wonder if the RN and RAF websites fail to mention these details also? I should hope not considering that they are both "Royal" services unlike the Army. WillDow (Talk) 13:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The number of screw ups with data is shocking, especially when its because someone leaves a memory stick or laptop somewhere, why they put such sensitive data on devices that can be taken outside of government buildings and lost i dont know. As for the monarchy, sadly that appears to be a pattern too, not just the military websites and other government websites but schools will hardly cover the topic on monarchy these days. And people wonder why we live in dark times where disloyalty and and division is widespread. I blame the left, sadly conservative governments are just as much to blame though. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This is true. Although I think the continual political insinuations of 'left-ism' and 'right-ism' is also part of the problem. What really matters is what is right for the country, and what is bad for the country. That is what government, the media, and the populace should focus on. --Topperfalkon (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is all sides, although i do think the centre right (conservatives) are simply incompetent where as the left (labour) are intentionally seeking to undermine certain parts of our culture and identity to further their ideological agenda. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. I think it's more to do with money personally...--Topperfalkon (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like to see some proper data security going on too. And yes, I think the British Army should pay more attention to their roots in the royalty... There are plenty of divisions/regiments/etc. with implicit connections to the Royal Family --Topperfalkon (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of royalty, or the Queen as being at the top of the pecking order on any of the three services websites. No mention of why the "Royal" in the history sections, or about the monarch in the overall structure. I thought at least the RN or RAF would have included this. As far as I can see, all three services have almost word for word statements about the MOD and the top structure:

"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is a Department of State, headed by the Secretary of State for Defence (SofS) who creates Defence Policy and plans the spending of the Defence Budget. The MoD is the highest level of headquarters for the Armed Forces, both Administrative and Operational. All major issues of policy are referred to the SofS or to one of his three Ministerial colleagues..."

Very poor me thinks... WillDow (Talk) 13:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I might draw attention to this in the relevant places if possible when I have some spare time this evening. That's a bit shameful that there's no 'proper' history section on the websites.--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Its disgraceful yes, and all the more annoying when you imagine the sort of money they have wasted paying for the deeply flawed website creation. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Topperfalkon (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed Miliband BLP concerns[edit]

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Miliband#Decision of the Mediation Committee, and the links there to the report I filed at WP:BLPN relating to your edits to Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Regards, AGK 23:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read your comments, thank you for your time. --Topperfalkon (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your latest revert; please refer to WP:BLPCAT, the talk page and the BLP noticeboard for explanation. I strongly encourage you to revert - either that or demonstrate that this category is notable to his public life in reliable sources. BLP violations are a bright line, they strongly override any other consensus. And BLPCAT is particularly explicit. --Errant (chat!) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not blind to your concerns, but the issue has been in quite strong discussion for well over a month and it was decided that the version arrived upon both fits policy best and is the best for the article. See my reply on the article. Furthermore, I don't feel it is acceptable to simply remove something reached upon by consensus and only cite policy without giving a proper argument for that edit.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, BLP policy is specific and unavoidable. I have been watching the page to see if it can be demonstrated that BLPCAT is satisfied; but so far this is not the case. Talk page consensus does not override BLP enforcement; I have rv'd the BLP violation, please satisfy BLPCAT sufficiently before adding the categories back. There is no real room for manoeuvre on this, we must take care to make categories, particularly BLP categories, relevant and of due worth. --Errant (chat!) 22:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Errant, you don't get to determine what is a BLP violation. You get to have an opinion on that, but it doesn't count any more than anyone else's opinion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We have been discussing BLPCAT in a number of places recently. There is strong movement to enforce it from here on out. I recommend asking at the relevant talk page for clarification on why this is an important issue. I realise you feel you have a compromise or consensus; but BLPCAT must be observed, or modified (if that is the community decision) --Errant (chat!) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Re-reading BLPCAT, I don't see your argument. It has been made abundantly clear in the article talk pages that the use of Category: British Jews is not of a religious nature, it is of an ethnic nature. He has identified as being of Jewish identity and as a potential future PM I fail to see how such potential affiliations cannot be notable! Furthermore, a strong movement to enforce BLPCAT does not override basic Wikipedia principles, even though in this case most of the followers of that article clearly believe it is not being breached.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The important issue is that the significance must be demonstrated in a RS. As it is I do not think the possibility of him being PM is relevant under our Crystal Ball policy - that is somewhat by the by though. BLP policy is usually considered a bright line; it is enforced fairly widely and overrides local talk page consensus. I'd encourage bringing in more BLP experts, particularly those interested in BLPCAT to put their opinion onto the table. I appreciate you all trying to compromise; but breaking BLP is a troublesome issue. --Errant (chat!) 23:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This isn't just local talk page consensus, this has been through RFC and RFM processes in an attempt to widen the discussion and cement a particular resolution. There has been no overall change in consensus since the last consensus. Given that BLP has been evaluated in our process of reaching consensus, your particular interpretation of BLP and BLPCAT can't simply overwrite talk page consensus. Such a process would be extremely disruptive to Wikipedia and be severely detrimental to its articles' qualities.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Unfortunately, where there is a critical failure to meet policy, and where that policy is important (BLP) we generally have to approach this from "cut it out and then convince enough people that policy is satisfied". I appreciate this has been through a number of processes; but the mediator pushed it back to the BLP/N because specific BLP expertise was recquired, expertise which has now been given by at least three people. I've been keeping a weather eye on all the discussion so far; and unfortunately no one has been able to satisfy BLPCAT at this time --Errant (chat!) 23:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP was deemed satisfied before the mediator's intervention. In truth, because of the long delay in the beginning of that process, the state of the categories on that page were a non-issue to involved parties at that time. Only a minor disagreement with a single editor remained. I'm unconvinced that BLP hasn't been satisfied and, as sorry as I am to repeat the usage of this word, I think yourself and others are being a bit to zealous in conforming to BLP to the letter where you should be looking at the article as a whole and from a detached perspective. As per the article talk page, I still don't believe any violation of BLP or BLPCAT has occurred, and I am still affronted by the action undertaken by yourself and John (who was present during the discussions but absent through much of it) without first explaining the violations you believe to have occurred in sufficient detail.--Topperfalkon (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollback.svg

Hi Topperfalkon. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed Milliband[edit]

Please don't reply to Bus stop -its the only chance of him going away and stropping going in never ending ethnic circles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do my best not to. During that last discussion I think I only referenced him at all once or twice. --Topperfalkon (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive[edit]

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, October 2013[edit]


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2013
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2013, the project has:


To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive[edit]

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Joan Bell, Barbara Stevens and Janet Hunter redirects[edit]

This is just a note that I have combined your nominations of the Joan Bell and Barbara Stevens redirects at RfD as they have the same target and rationale. I also discovered that the Janet Hunter redirect you linked to as part of your rationale was improperly deleted (redirects are not eligible for PROD), so I have restored it and added it to the combined nomination. To keep things simple, I've put the combined nomination on today's RfD page (26 January) and marked the entries on yesterday's log as relisted. The other change is that I am proposing to retarget all three redirects rather than deleting as you proposed.

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 26#Janet Hunter for the discussion and my rationale, which should all make sense (even if the above doesn't) but do feel free to say if any of it doesn't! Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 Wikification drive[edit]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!!![edit]

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.[edit]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter![edit]

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.[edit]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Orphaned non-free image File:Discord logo.svg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Discord logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:World Wide Web[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:World Wide Web. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows 10[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Windows 10. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Augustin-Louis Cauchy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Augustin-Louis Cauchy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Content (measure theory)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Content (measure theory). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flux[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flux. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheres[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheres. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Borel regular measure[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Borel regular measure. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catechin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catechin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orders of magnitude (acceleration)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orders of magnitude (acceleration). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gustav Holst[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gustav Holst. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ezra Pound[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ezra Pound. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Violence against men[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Violence against men. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SIG MCX[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SIG MCX. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)