User talk:Williamgeorgefraser

North British Loco Classifications

Thank you for your comment. I have copied it to Talk:Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway and, hopefully, this will start a debate. Biscuittin (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Montreuillon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Montreuillon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to File:Montreuillon.jpg has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Montreuilloneuro.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Montreuilloneuro.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ronnie Mitchell. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Frickative 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring on Ronnie Mitchell. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 22:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Williamgeorgefraser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appear to have been blocked from editing Wikipedia pages simply for unknowingly stumbling upon a future storyline in Eastenders. I can only imagine that the addition of 1 innocent line caused panic in the hearts of the scriptwriters and I have since come under attack

Decline reason:

Per the comment below by Frickative and the comment by Black Kite above, you were blocked for your conduct, not your content. You were edit warring and we cannot simply allow the person who is most bull-headed about getting what they want to rule, so we have a policy to force discussion. However as you can see at Talk:Ronnie_Mitchell#Danielle, a number of users disagree with you and were against it. I have no opinion on how correct your view is but, even then, you must act appropriately here and discuss it if it seems that people are against it. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your block was for breaking the three revert rule, which I left a message on your talk page to let you know about. I also suggested on the Ronnie Mitchell talk page that you read the Wikipedia policy on synthesis so as to better understand why your addition was unsuitable for inclusion. As you persisted in reverting the page, you were blocked to stop your edit warring. I'm not an administrator and have no power over blocking/unblocking, but perhaps this will better help you understand why your block came about. Frickative 06:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't make accusations like here. It's highly inappropriate (and uncivil) and just not conducive to a healthy atmosphere here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:St Florentin public park.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:St Florentin public park.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and delete the file. I have uploaded the file to Wiki Commons but am unable to place it in the Category I wish as though there are other photos in the category and I have followed the same path, each time I am told the category does not exist and would I like to create it. You may remove all copies of it. I will upload it later when I have an answer to this problem.Williamgeorgefraser 07:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Categories

You can start with a general cat. like Category:France? feydey (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Actually, I don't understand your arguments because they have no bearing on the discussion at hand. As well, you hardly substantiate the points you do make. You claim that the article's existence is an attempt to "promote" homosexuality, when it makes no persuasive case for or against homosexuality. The article only describes an individual who was a notable homosexual figure as depicted by the news. Then you proceed to go on a tangent about "religion and sexuality" being a private part of life in society, which is a complete non sequitur. Not once is religion mentioned in the article, let alone mentioned in the context of homosexuality, and whatever point you were trying to make about society is never expanded upon and vague at best. Then you make a handful of wild assumptions about the motivations of the subject which are either completely incorrect and refutable by sources on the page itself or completely speculative and unverifiable, not to mention completely out of the blue. Maybe you're a new editor here, but article talk pages pertain to the content of the article itself, not whether the article should be deleted. Like another editor pointed out, that's what the AfD is for. You may want to read up on the following Wikipedia contribution policies as you continue participating on Wikipedia: WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:SPECULATION, and, based on the highly inappropriate and outlandish response you posted on my talk page, WP:CIVILITY. And in reference to this last policy, I kindly request an apology from you concerning your personal attacks so this escalates no further.

As for your comments on the AfD, your opinion is that the article is not notable because the subject's coming out didn't inspire closeted athletes to come out of the closet in the professional hockey world, which is not what WP:NOTABILITY is concerned with. Notability is primarily established by sufficient attention from third party sources, which the article demonstrates. Additionally, as a side comment, whether or not an action has an impact on a specific outcome (in this case, per your statement, whether or not closeted hockey players come out) is an insufficient measure of notability. The action showed impact in the discussion it created throughout the sports world, as documented by the articles that attributed their discussions (and the articles themselves, in some cases) to Burke's coming out. Feel free to read those sources to verify. And as a general tip, if the action was insignificant, it probably wouldn't have garnered international media attention. Finally, your measurement of significance of Brendan Burke's coming out impact is interesting, particularly because it suggests that you believe that social progress is measured in immediate and quantifiable outcomes, particularly with isolated events, when the natural pattern of all social movements is that they are gradual processes characterized by singular events that may eventually result in social change, which is itself typically slow and rarely dramatic and immediate. John Amaechi's coming out in the NBA didn't inspire other athletes in the NBA to come out, nor did Gareth Thomas's recent coming out in the UK result in a "list" of freshly self-outed rugby players. Nor did the first few days or even years after Susan B. Anthony's protests for women's suffrage result in complete social change, with her dying before seeing her own right to vote. Would you also consider these to be insignificant given their own isolated occurrences and inability to spark immediate floodgates of change that you seem to expect? In fact, the argument is at once limited in its perspective and naive of the realities of social inequity. However, that is merely a personal digression to critique the thought processes behind the argument. The main point, again, is that your argument, as flawed as it is, has no bearing on the discussion of the article's notability. That's what's confusing about your contributions—you're bringing up oranges in a discussion about apples.Luminum (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not post slurs and vandalism on a discussion page as you did here. As you should already know, it is highly inappropriate. If you no longer wish to participate in the discussion, you can simply choose not to.Luminum (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Ford - Revelations

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

Nomination of Huthaifa al-Batawi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Huthaifa al-Batawi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huthaifa al-Batawi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lister

No problems, always happy to help! If there are any other DAFC players that you believe merit an article then let me know and I'll create them as well. Giant Snowman 23:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Williamgeorgefraser. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Williamgeorgefraser. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Dunfermline City Letters Patent.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dunfermline City Letters Patent.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]