User talk:Vinylritchie

Welcome to Wikipedia from CynofGavuf

Hi, Vinylritchie. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cynof Gavuf 12:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Pilger's date of birth

Please take up this issue with Wikipedia officially if you believe this information is false despite the readily available reliable sources which benefitted from John Pilger's direct involvement. Without a ruling from on high, editors are likely to continue reverting your edits. The page on editors' potential conflicts of interest may, or may not, be relevant to your case. Philip Cross (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For other users, see also User talk:62.254.20.226. Philip Cross (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding John Pilger and your repeated reverts: Please stop reverting edits of other editors without addressing the issue at the article's talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinylritchie, take this issue to Jimmy Wales again, if you must, but Pilger's date of birth is on page after page of Google results, some of them very reliable sources. Philip Cross (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

it has, as you well know, nothing to do with the sources Editor, JohnPilger.com 10:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The ready availability of this detail makes deleting the information from WP irrelevant as a means of preventing Pilger being a victim of further identity theft. Philip Cross (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ought to be discussed at Talk:John Pilger; but, in short: the wide availability of Pilger's birthday makes claims of confidentiality and identity theft rather hysterical.

What should now be discussed here is a violation of the three-revert rule by Vinylritchie; so, for the record:

Your recent editing history at John Pilger shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the three-revert rule that you - Philip Cross - also broke earlier in the year over this issue? And that Michael Bednarek is now also breaking? As i have repeatedly said, this has been discussed at length before, both publicly on talk pages and in private, and as you are both insistent on prolonging this tedium, or should i say 'hysteria' as you so judgementally put it, it has been re-referred to Jimmy Wales. Editor, JohnPilger.com 13:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were responding to Michael Bednarek, not me. Edits which look like vandalism are exempt (see WP:3RRNO). Philip Cross (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving WP:3RRNO aside, I can'y find any incidents of violations by me or Philip Cross since mid-November 2012. Your three violating edits are:

I suggest you self-revert your most recent edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you haven't looked far enough back - Jimmy Wales intervened in June 2012, but Philip Cross's obsessive edits began in August 2010, the reversions are late that year. As you can see above he says he is exempt because it 'looked like vandalism' but he persisted with the edits even when it was explained otherwise which is why the Wikipedia founder stepped in Editor, JohnPilger.com 09:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there is some statutory limitation on these infringements, but you if you feel strongly enough about it, you might raise it at WP:AN3, although I'd think that your more recent edits might attract a dim view there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think subsequent behaviour of an investigations into Philip Cross explain a lot of his so called 'edit wars' from the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.141.87 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Colingpaterson twitter profile.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Colingpaterson twitter profile.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:Colingpaterson twitter profile.jpg

Hello, Vinylritchie. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Colingpaterson twitter profile.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Paterson sent a permissions email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org some time ago, i've been through this process already with another over-zealous bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.141.87 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ros Atkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Hall. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]