User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 10

File source problem with File:CountyIMOS.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:CountyIMOS.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi CT, thx for the feedback on the FRAC act... any more suggestions would be appreciated. swain (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

On Deletions

Review of Deletions made by Snowded:

I noticed on Snowded's Talk Page that you have had discussions with him about his abuses. I also noticed that others have issues with him, and that he takes a nasty tone in his replies. He has been deleting my work in Naturalism (Philosophy) as soon as I put it up, with these comments:

1) "rewriting the article to conform with a position you advocate". I admit it, but it is becoming a common position that the very word "naturalism" has lost any or all meaning. I cited well known authorities in my last revision, including a professor at Ohio University who wrote to me personally to help with my work, and the website where his comment may be found.

2) His point that "if you want to make changes you should raise them on the talk page of the article concerned." So I did that and he did not reply.

3) He challenged some of my authorities on whom I formed my idea, asking me to name them. Quentin Smith was the editor of Philo for several years, Tibor Machan has written about 50 books, is a Fellow at the CATO Institute, and is influential inside the Beltway and in Libertarian circles. After challenging me to name some sources, he wrote: "you are the one name dropping (and not very good names at that)." One citation I used in the work he deleted yesterday was John R. Searle! I wonder if he thinks Searle is not a good citation.

The point of my work is to make it clear to the uninitiated that "naturalism" is not black-and-white or cut and dried.

I don't know how to handle this fellow called Snowded. You seem to know him and his work. If he will not address my concerns on the Talk Page of the topic, and criticizes me without proper academic protocol elsewhere, then how do I begin to accomplish what I am trying to do?

By the way: I have many professionals with whom I do or can communicate with, and who pass advice on to me. For over a year I published a blog 6 days a week on the subject of naturalism, and the work I published to Scribd has been read more than 25,000 times in less than 12 months. I am not a novice on the subject of Naturalism. I am personally familiar with Professor Machan, Professor Smith and others. Should I start an disambiguation page, or is the revision I made yesterday, 9-15-09 sufficient to make my point?

Thank you for your help. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Can you please format your edits correctly, they're difficult to read.
2. Do no sign edits to the main article space. Sign them on talk pages yes, but don't sign edits in the article space.
3. I have no had words with Snowded about his "abuses". I spoke to him once about a 3RR violation, that was it. I consider Snowded to be an excellent editor with a good head for neutrality in topics.
4. I cannot see where on the talk page you have tried to speak with Snowded about these items. You have added extensively to a four year old conversation that no one will ever read rather than starting a topic at the bottom of the talk page where new conversations should go.
5. Looking through the edits you're making to the article they do seem to be promoting this Center for Metaphysical Naturism.
6. Also your edits are not encyclopaedic or written in an encyclopaedic style. You have made edits to these articles that could come straight from a blog, but are not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic, not a blog, not a soapbox, and not a place to put forward your own theories and viewpoints on a topic.

I think you just need to step back, read some of our manual of styles and information about tone and references and try again. Also you can try opening a meaningful discussion on the talk page and I'm sure Snowded will respond to you. Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That is precisely what I needed to hear from Snowded, instead of what I did hear from him. Sincerely, Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

I wasnt actually copying their work exactly, just exposing the relevant material for further modification.--Nuklear (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ATTN: CANTERBURY, RE: SHADOWRUN LINK

As this debate happened years ago, I do not have access to that account. the #S-Run Community link has just as much value to the online Shadowrun community as Dumpshock does, because it has been the place to find real-time text-based Shadowrun gaming as opposed to the "Play By Post" option.

I will not go into too much detail over the removal of my link from the Shadowrun page; however, you should consult the Discussions page of that wiki as it has been addressed in the past by an administrator of wikipedia. The verdict of that dispute was that the #S-Run Community site belongs there just as much as, say, Dumpshock. The link is not an advertisement for a site, just as the Dumpshock link is not an advertisement -- but a valuable resource for online roleplayers.

The #S-Run Gaming Community is a long-standing Shadowrun hub for gamers who *cannot find groups in real life* to play the game online, live, via IRC -- and a valuable resource for over a decade now (going on year 13 this October). The CHANNEL alone sees 1/3 to 1/4th the traffic of ENTIRE IRC NETWORKS devoted to *every RPG* -- and its focus is on Shadowrun alone. As the issue of the #S-Run link has been addressed in the past (and only removed again because hosting was lost for a time).

Thank you for your concern and vigilance in these matters, but I believe I am (and have been confirmed to be in the past, by you) fully within the wikipedia policy rights to display it. Also, it appears that this has sparked much debate in the Discussions forums, with overwhelming support for the continued addition of the #S-Run Community link (at the time of this writing).

Solorunner (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)-The SuperFly (Owner & Administrator of #S-Run)

I've said about all I need to say on the issue for the moment, and included an external link in the discussion forum for those interested in the debate to check for themselves so that a community consensus can be reached as to its value as a wikipedia link. I hope that this is not in violation of any policy. If it is, please let me know and it will be removed. I believe; however, that its presence in the current discussion is necessary at this juncture.

On another note, I am curious to know what changed about the decision to have the link remain posted? It remained on the wikipedia until hosting was lost, and is being rebuilt to the exact same specifications it held before.

Solorunner (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, having the link in the talk page is fine, as it's the subject of a discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Date linking by User:203.97.255.42

Anonymous user 203.97.255.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is still linking dates, after you blocked him for doing that: [1] [2] [3] –Signalhead ^< T > 11:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

He's still doing it today: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] –Signalhead ^< T > 12:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again. Disruptive editing despite continuous warnings. Canterbury Tail talk 13:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The block doesn't seem to have worked. He's back again, and still linking dates: [9] –Signalhead ^< T > 10:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this user on the Administrator's noticeboard. Feel free to contribute to it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Back again; still mass-linking dates: [10] –Signalhead ^< T > 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you keep a eye on this

Any chance you could keep an eye on this, just to maintain a bit of civility? I have pointed out my concerns here here and here but it is not having the affect I'd hoped for. Comments like this and the one above help no one: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Another editor has tried to reason with them, somewhat but still no use? The little out burst above was because of this note on 3RR after they had reverted 5 times on the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that the article can't now be improved, but also a relief that it can't now further degenerate into yet another mindless piece of Irish republican propaganda. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The article can still be edited, simply put forward an edit request. Canterbury Tail is trying to prevent the edit warring currently going on and the massive levels of incivility and abuse. As an alternative to blocks its a reasonable action, though I'm always opposed to page locks. Your comment above however does not lend its self to the reasonable responce that the page lock is trying to encourage. Thanks Canterbury Tail for trying to nip this in the bud. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While you, of course, are the paragon of all reason.[23] You should be on the stage Domer. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tele'

Hi Ben. Couldn't think of an appropriate venue to raise this, so I thought I'd bother you :-) Could you look at the "Criticism" section that an anon IP has been inserting into the Belfast Telegraph article. It stems from an article which the anon claims has been deleted. If it has been deleted, it has been replaced with a different article. Whether the article existed or not, there is no source for the claims now. The "new" article is similar to the claimed old one, but omits the "Psycho fans’ looking to kill Northern Ireland supporters during Poland clash" bit. I assume Barnes has got a a ticking off and the article has been changed, but we have no evidence that the original said what the anon is claiming. Semi protection? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

An article deleted, then replaced by another with the same name, on a similar topic but without the criticism? I don't think so. No reference, no dice. Also criticism by whom? I don't see any criticism or references of the criticism other than a forum post which is meaningless as a source on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you Google "Psycho fans’ looking to kill Northern Ireland supporters during Poland clash", it would appear that it was the original title of the article, but it's gone now and there's no cached version. But you're right, the criticism was limited to forums so it's a non-starter anyway. If they continue adding the paragraph semi protection might be a good idea. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs reliable third party sources for the criticism to be used, no third parties other than some forums have criticised it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I said. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Vintagekits has just undone a revert so now we have the awful wording that has no consensus. Could the stable version be restored? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the stable wording, there is no consensus for this change. Jeni ^(talk) 21:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it but not because you think it's awful wording, but because it's been discussed before in that phrasing and no consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		You seem to get a lot of crap from people, but you take it in your stride and carry on regardless. Good to see :) Don't let anything or anyone get you down. Jeni (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I get it, don't worry. From both sides. Republican terrorist supporter and Imperialist bigot. Sometimes both on the same day :)

ThanksCanterbury Tail talk 22:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A chara, taking part in the revert war and using blocks at the same time does not look good. Jeni I notice did not get a block, and the edit summary was a tad off? As for myself and that article, 20ft and barge pole come to mind. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As already explained on the talk page, I didn't violate the editing restriction, I didn't revert a revert. How many times do I need to explain this to people?!?! Jeni ^(talk) 22:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My edit was to reset to before the edit war. And to consensus version. I can give myself a block if you like. I suppose in all fairness that Tharkun should probably get a lift as well.

Jeni doesn't get a block as she reverted the BHG edit. That's allowed, it's only revert a revert that's not allowed. Canterbury Tail talk 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

When is an edit a revert so if I add the sentence back in 3 days is that a revert or an edit? And don't worry I don't intend to. BigDunc 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the system, gaming and the problems :) Canterbury Tail talk 23:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully CT, there's no similiar controversy at Irish Sea. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide if I can't spend my time on other things and just giving up Wikipedia. It's a little like re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, except people keep adding more chairs. Canterbury Tail talk 23:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Never a truer word spoken. I think i'll add that to my userpage. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I only made one revert...

So why did you block me? ðarkuncoll 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You reverted a revert, that is the editing restriction. Canterbury Tail talk 23:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BRD warnings

FYI - I am leaving warnings such as User_talk:TharkunColl#Bold.2C_Revert.2C_Discuss at various user's talkpages. Feel free to impose such sanctions on those editors I have warned if such behaviour continues, or to add further editors by leaving the same message. Cheers, Black Kite 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Altic languages

And a blocked user. I was requested to block this user, however I noticed there was an attempt to provide a reference when requested. Also that the events are some time in the past, and that you are involved on that page, and in reverting the user. For these reasons, I would ask that you unblock this user for now please. I have created a section on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC).

Fair enough. I blocked for 3RR violation, by a long shot. But okay, I'll unblock. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator you might want to take a look at the article "Garfield Hieghts Ohio". It seems to be being used as a political billboard Meanfrank (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, i found something interesting!

If you copy and paste this link to at least 3 other pages on Wikipedia a thing will appear saying you have new messages. If it does not work click here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loangraysuittoday (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your D9 image

Hi Canterbury Tail! I have created a thread about your D9 image at WP:MCQ. Your input would be much appreciated. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:District-9 advertising Canterbury Tail 25 June 2009.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:District-9 advertising Canterbury Tail 25 June 2009.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Stifle (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you have a look

We have a recently created IP user:/194.46.245.173 who has edited Northern Ireland and Crossmaglen and then reverted to a position that Norther Ireland is not a country and that Crossmaglen is in Ireland not Northern Ireland. I'm not risking going beyond 1RR here as it could be interpreted as Troubles related. I have advised the user but no response. --Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That was fast - thanks --Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't actually notice your talk as you put it on my user page rather than talk page :) I'd spotted him anyway, it's a vandalism account by the way they replace Northern Ireland with an island name. Canterbury Tail talk 15:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That was silly of me, too little sleep! WIll treat it as vandalism if it comes back again --Snowded ^TALK 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Trikemike

Users may remove any content they wish from their user and talk pages. That doesn't mean the information isn't still accessible, or that sockpuppet investigations can't continue. If you want to open a sockpuppet investigation, please do so. Otherwise, please do not harass other editors with accusations which do not appear to have any base. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

American Technologies Network Corporation

Hello! I tried to re-write American Technologies Network Corporation page several times, but this page was deleted by you (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement). But I don`t really understand why this happends. While writing this article, I used images uploaded by me with "Public Domain" licensing type; videos uploaded by me with "Public Domain" licensing type and links to the site of this corporation. I don`t really see any reason to delete my page because I don`t see any "unambiguous copyright infringement" or advertising. I tried to create a page about this corporation and the products they produce and technologies they use. And now I can`t even create the page with this name because "The page title you have tried to create has been protected from creation. The reason given is: Excessive spamming: and copyvios". Can you answer, how can I create the page with this name without any problems and without deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripedfox (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You copied text directly from their corporate website, which is copyrighted text. You uploaded copyrighted images taken from their website with no evidence that the images are indeed public domain, and then claimed them as your own work. It's all copyright violations and advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

American Technologies Network Corporation

The matter is that I am the employee of this company and I have rights to place texts and images to Wikipedia. We want to post this article to give the information about our company and about the products variety we offer to our clients. What supporting documentation we are to provide to place this article without any problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripedfox (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're using Wikipedia for self-promotion and have a conflict of interest. Problem is we have no evidence of this, no releases for rights to information. You know if you release that text and those images that you no longer have any control over them and they are truly public domain and you can never again claim ownership of that text and images? Please read the articles on WP:COI, WP:Copyright, WP:Advert and WP:Corp and then we can see what we can do. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

American Technologies Network Corporation

We have observed pages like we are going to make and have read all information you adviced to read and are ready to try re-writing this page in Wikipedia style according to all rules and signing the license type. Can we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripedfox (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page in question. You can try again. Any help, don't be afraid to ask. Canterbury Tail talk 12:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

American Technologies Network Corporation

Could you please watch this page again and tell what mistakes we made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripedfox (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay the article is all written in advertising speak and copied directly from your website. This is a copyright violation. ATN claims copyright over the text, but if you release it to Wikipedia you are doing so under a license which removes all your rights to such copyright and makes all the images, text etc freely available to everyone to use. It's just completely promotional in nature, and reads solely for promotional use and not as an encyclopaedic article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, that`s me again. Could you please help me with my article again? As I noticed you have visited my article after a few changes and made some corrections but left no comments. Does it mean that you were satisfied by my article? The problem is that PhantomSteve user warned me that he would propose my article for deletion because of absense of reliable sources. During the last two days I did my best to find such resources and have found different magazines with the reviews of our production, videos made by PoliceOne about our company and the information about contract between our company and General Services Administration. But PhantomSteve told me that these are not enough reliable sources and warned me again. I even don`t know what to do with that. We have no articles about us in The New York Times and it is not surprising, such publications don`t write articles about night vision optics, it is not their competence. And the links to the magazine's web sites and pdf files, that describe such themes, are provided. I ask you to help me in this, that is my first article for Wikipedia and it is very hard for me for the first time. Stripedfox talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

Actually a deletion proposal would be good as it would highlight all the problems specifically and allow you to correct them. Problem here is Wikipedia is all volunteers, and people don't always have a lot of time to devote to giving good answers all the while. I'll have another look when I get a chance. Canterbury Tail talk 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

IP. 166.205.xxx.xxx

Howdy CT. I see you've met my daily stalker & one of his IP accounts. If only a gorgeous gal was that obsessed with me, oh well. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism account, but easily immediately blocked fro 1RR on British Isles. Getting a bit tiresome really isn't it. So how's the day up in Ottawa is it? Lovely down here by Lake Ontario though a bit of overcast cloud on it's way in. Canterbury Tail talk 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The stalker has a strange fetish, to be sure. In Ottawa, it's (I believe) partially cloudy. November tends to be rainy, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it always the same IP range? Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, 166.205.xxx.xxx. My contribution history (of reverting him) is peppered by them. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If no constructive contributions are coming from that range maybe we should just block the range then. Canterbury Tail talk 19:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds cool. The anon did boast (last month) on my talkpage (I've since reverted him), that he'd continue his current behaviour & that Wikipedia could 'never' stop him. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This IP account 166.205.133.38 may help things. Ya gotta check out what he posted on my talkpage, on 20:24, 15 October 2009. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see about getting something done. I'm going to see if we can get permission to autoblock the entire range, since nothing productive comes out of it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie & Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just glad he doesn't disrupt my talkpage (anymore), he he he. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few days, but my secret admirer is back (as 166.205.138.250). I'm letting ya know, so she'll see that I'm giving her my attention. I'm giving her a thrill, by having her thinking I'm annoyed. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put a report in at the Administrator's Noticeboard. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Firefly edit removal clarification

Can I get some explanation to the removal of my entry on Firefly (TV series) dated today? The reason given was that it's "completely unencyclopaedic". I think the entry I added was relevant but perhaps it was added improperly. Thanks. Gudlyf (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You added an entry in the cast section of the Firefly article about an easter egg regarding an item from Firefly appearing in Castle. That is trivia at best, but definitely not encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Can you tell me how it's different than the entry just before where I added it, about the Firefly reference in Castle? I based my entry on where that was placed, yet it still remains there. Gudlyf (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that entry has now been removed as well. It's not related in any way to the casting of Firefly. Canterbury Tail talk 02:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MANU Controversy

As it stands the section does not endorse or present as legitimate the controversial thesis. It just reports on its existence. --Anothroskon (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm literally speechless! You actually don't know that there a county in Ireland called Derry? Have you ever been to Ireland? Amazing. I've read up on this and just because occupying forcese "decide" to name an area doesn't make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seankelly2002 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No you are incorrect. There has never officially been a county called County Derry in the history of Ireland. County Londonderry was created from County Coleraine. And County Londonderry is in Northern Ireland, not just the landmass of Ireland. As for the occupying force naming something doesn't mean that's the name, well I've never heard anyone in the last several hundred years call it County Coleraine, as your argument would mean it would be called.

If you continue you will be blocked as your account is only being used for vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 18:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Blade Runner Revenge Quest deletion

The movie Revenge Quest is almost a scene by scene remake of Blade Runner. Because the movie is independent, old and not very popular, this has not been written about by anyone other than IMDb contributors. I understand that the citation that I put wasn't appropriate, however, anyeone who has seen both movie will recognize this immediately. Do I cite the movie? Is there no way to include this in the Blade Runner article. I am not trying to sell this movie, in fact, I believe it is a terrible movie. Why would I be trying to sell a movie that is 14 years old anyways? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayElwood (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You need some kind of independant verifiable reference. See WP:REF. Wikipedia is unfortunately not based on truth, but based on verifiability and sourcing (also see WP:VERIFY.) The problem with the references you used is that IMDB reviews and opinion are not encyclopaedic and cannot be used. And the link being used to the VISTA site didn't support any of the claims you where making for it to support. In fact the link only contained an image of the front cover of the movie, and no info about it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ^Izzedine 01:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. British Isles includes Ireland, general definition, a definition used in Ireland, the definition used worldwide, the consensus definition used on Wikipedia as per British Isles, as per Encyclopedia Britannica, as per the majority of worldwide dictionaries. Please stop trying to push your own brand of POV in using a term that is not per general international consensus. The fact that the term includes Ireland isn't really controversial, some people object to it being used as a term, but not that it includes Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The name is controversial. Not the question of the geographic unit - but the naming of it. There are plenty of neutral alternatives available, pick one. ^Izzedine 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir I noticed that this person does not have a page and I am authorized to use this information as I am active member of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission 12:41, 8 December 2009 Canterbury Tail (talk | contribs) deleted "Sadhu Vaswani Mission" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.sadhuvaswani.org/index-3.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranayrupani (talk • contribs)

And we have no evidence of this, and even if you do have permission does the person granting you the permission know that by putting it on Wikipedia they lose all rights to the text and it becomes public domain? Canterbury Tail talk 13:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and information, Sir this information is meant for the public domain (all of it already is) and the orginal text you see there has been contributed by all various Sadhu Vaswani mission outlets around the world. For all the copyrighted work there are books, if you are not satisfied is there any way to insert a Copyright Sadhu Vaswani Mission at the end. This is a non-profit animal rights organisation and it would help if there was a Wikipedia page to lend the cause (non-violence) inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and Sadhu Vaswani. Pranayrupani (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Pranay Rupani

No you cannot enter a copyright message, everything on Wikipedia must be GPL licensed.

Also please note, Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your mission, this is an encyclopaedic, not an advertising space. We are not here to help your cause, and if that is the intention then you've unfortunately come to the wrong place. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone

Thanks for your message. Don't worry about it...these things happen. Jack1956 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alice Mudgarden unblock

I think this user, whose username perhaps breaks our username policy, considers him/herself to have given a reason if not in the unblock reques. In any case, your unblock has been removed [24] Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it breaks the username policy, and cannot see an actual requested reason. And as for labelling the decline as vandalism, well that's another story again. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right about the username, I did see someone complain but no basis for it. Meanwhile, the editor is still saying they've given a reason and removed your denial. It does look to me as though they've renounced any legal threat, but.... Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Their last chance. If they remove the decline one more time they'll be locked from editing their own page and the matter will be completely closed with them gone. Canterbury Tail talk 14:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure how I got into this in the first place, but they don't seem to get it. Canterbury Tail talk 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious

The notification of the Irish Poll was out of date as of September. We then have a known disruptive editor inserting speculative nonsense about Ireland being called little Britain. They are not proposing any change to the page, or participating in any current discussion. The editor concerned as been blocked for such behaviour before, as well as for his/her total refusal to follow formatting standards. Why reinstate either? Honestly curious here --Snowded ^TALK 14:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I only reinstated it due to the removal of the poll notification. There is no reason to delete that. Archive it yes, but not to delete it. If it was just the deletion of the AVL comments, I wouldn't have been so bothered. I am bothered however when IP addresses with no prior edits come in and remove comments and throwing around accusations of troll. If it's removed again, I'll not put it back. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, my bad on deleting not archiving noted. I know the problem with IPs but this time the troll accusation had a solid basis, but understood. --Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Londonderry/Derry

I don't care if wikipedia decides to side with the English and decide that it should be called 'Londonderry.' I think the Irish can name their own counties don't you? I don't care if you think it constitutes vandalism, it is the right thing to do and I will forever do it. --81.129.48.60 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a case of siding with anyone, it's a case of that's what the county was named. There has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 18:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

request for comment

If you have a moment before the weekend would you take a look at this. I am trying to put a mediation process in place over the use of "British Isles". --Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Henry Blomberg

Hi, in regards to the deletion nomination, in the past WikiProject Military history has stated that Distinguished Service Cross recipients are notable enough to be the subject of an article. I hope this is enough to clear things up. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 19 December 2009

Can you indicate where this is stated, as their own notability guidelines indicate otherwise. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually, the opposite, as I notified the user at his userpage in September. That includes details on why second-tier awards aren't notable without reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. With precedent of lack of notability then the rest should be deleted as not notable under A7. Military History Wikiproject notability guidelines even state they're not notable. I'll go through and delete them as speedies if the AfD comes back as delete. Canterbury Tail talk 20:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Don't Be Such a Scientist (book)

Don't be so hard on yourself. The reviews were only added after you PRODded the article, but before the AfD. So the system worked, and an article that was worthy of deletion or merger got improved to the point where it could stand alone, which may not have happened without your PROD. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah that would explain why I didn't notice them before. Oops. Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Canterbury Tail! At this time of year, I would like to extend seasons greetings to the Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past year on Wikipedia. I wish you a wonderful holiday season! --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs)

Backspacer Tour

Thanks for the help with this page. Have a happy new year! Lugnuts (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Peaks Challenge Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, I just noticed that and have removed the prod. Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for unnecessary references

Canterbury, why are you requesting a reference for the self evident statement at Five Peaks Challenge that "The 5 Peaks Challenge is a hill climbing challenge in the British Isles"? Would you request a reference if you found an unreferenced assertion in Wikipedia that "Blue is a colour visible to humans" or "Mercury is the first planet out from the Sun"? No, I guess you wouldn't - so why are you doing so at the article in question? It seems that you are appeasing the anti-British Isles mob here at Wikipedia, whose aim is to junk the term from the whole of the encyclopedia, by whatever means they have at their disposal. One of those means is to request impossible-to-obtain references for the term, and then junk it when nothing is forthcoming. That tactic might be referred to as gaming the system. Mister Flash (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The references in that article are completely unsuitable. Someone's website about 12 of them going mountain climbing, and another site that doesn't even mention the challenge in question, are not suitable references for the article. It has nothing to do with the British Isles mention, although that could be considered unnecessary, but everything to do with reliable references for the article. Canterbury Tail talk 22:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury, you wouldn't be a politician by any chance? You answered a question that I simply did not ask. Could you address the question I did ask. Muchus. Mister Flash (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked why I'm requesting references, I answered. You may not have liked the answer, but that's not the same thing as me not answering the question. As for it being self evident, it's also self-evident it's in Great Britain and Ireland, and also in Europe, so why must British Isles be used when it doesn't really fit the bill correctly? Canterbury Tail talk 01:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a politician - you still haven't answered. Here it is again, in good old Paxman style; why are you requesting references for a self evident statement? Mister Flash (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the "self-evident" statement is overdone in this context, unnecessary and smacks entirely of only existing for the purpose of creating controversy, especially when you start using terms not included in any of the sources. In fact in such a case it would actually be more appropriate to list the countries, not the geographical bodies, as this is more common. Canterbury Tail talk 13:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the article when it was created [25]. It contains the term "British Isles" and I doubt very much that its use was designed to provoke controversy. The controversy only started when HighKing found it. By all means list the countries; I think they are listed anyway. However, the first sentence is a very precise, useful, summary of the event and it is my contention that it should stay. Mister Flash (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mister Flash

The above is now becoming a major part of the problem here. Having got High King to agree to centralise requests for changes and abide by discussion and decision, we now have an alternate extremist who is simply reverting any change, refusing to engage in any discussion. I'm not sure what the next stage is on this. I had a worked mediation process which got some support but i am reluctant to put it up (in a revised form) until we get some stability in the editing community. I think there is enough evidence now across a range of articles that would make a case for Mister Flash being a form of anti-High King. Also that the issue here is not a article by article repetition, but a need to deal with the behaviour of a specific editor. Any advice appreciated. --Snowded ^TALK 11:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - anti-HighKing; yes and no. No because a true anti HK would seek to insert BI wherever possible; I don't do that. Yes, because I am working against him, and increasingly others as well, to try an put a stop to this insidious political editing. Now let's look at your recent record; Sarum Rite, England national football team, Five Peaks Challenge and others. Of the three listed here, there couldn't be a more diverse range of articles, and yet on each one you are doing your utmost to lose British Isles, using a range of weapons from your armoury; AfD, merge, WP:OR, WP:CITE, and if all else fails, resorting to vague statements such as "British Isles adds nothing here". If my actions are extremist, then so too are yours. As for the problem, the fundamental issue is that we have a small group of extremist (yes, extremist) editors using Wikipedia as a tool to promote their political agenda. That agenda includes the elimination of British Isles as a geographic term; you are complicit in their actions. Mister Flash (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you check the page set up for resolution you will find I am about 50-50 in support or rejection of BI. In the three cases above check out the conversations, in each case I (and others) are offering evidence you are simply reverting. --Snowded ^TALK 11:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some that I've agreed to; British Entomology, Lake District, Niccolò Paganini, Count palatine, Afro-Eurasia. They are all documented at Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/Specific_Examples/Closed. Mister Flash (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked and out of your five examples we have we have one consent in British Entomology where the book did not mention BI so it was pretty brain dead but I'll give you that one. One rather peculiar set of comments around Afro-Asian which can be deemed consent, one abstention, two with weird comments (eating your sporran, Pissing yourself) where your position is unclear. Those examples also come from the period when LevenBoy was doing the reverting, a role you have since taken over. In the current set of 18 articles there are no consents although on one you concede good arguments but stall on any change. That makes it 2/62 or 0.32%, I think my point stands. --Snowded ^TALK 13:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't taken over any role from anyone. I merely revert politically-motivated attempts to remove BI. Anyway, enough of this! If you can highlight cases where use of BI is incorrect without doubt then I'm happy to support its removal. You might also consider cases where it could be used to replace some of the alternatives currently used, if BI would be more appropriate. Problem is, most of the instances brought to the debate are not cut-and-dried cases. Mister Flash (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to LevenBoy? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I expect like many before him he has just got fed up with the whole issue - and basically given up, although his last edit was not that long ago. I almost gave up on it a week or so ago, then I thought - why should we accept this politicisation of Wikipedia, so I'm back. Mister Flash (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as we all control our emotions and avoid jabbing each other, this usage/non-usage of British Isles will be resolved. That's my main concern. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with Hibernian Aviva

Would you mind if you deleted the page Aviva Ireland (it's currently a redirect page) so I can rename Hibernian Aviva as Aviva Ireland? It is to restore the article's history. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No sorry, I see no reason to move it to that page. It appears Hiberian Aviva is the correct name, not Aviva Ireland. At least that's the name splashed all over their website, legal and contact forms. There is no news regarding a rename on any of their corporate sites, and everything says Hiberian Aviva. So why do you want it moved? Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the company is now being advertised as simply Aviva on TV and radio, stating that it is the new name for Hibernian Aviva. The website doesn't seem to be updated yet. Do you think that we should wait until Aviva appears on the website? Thanks --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 15:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And not Aviva Ireland? Then it shouldn't be moved to Aviva Ireland. I'd wait until there is good references for the renaming, but just because it's being advertised as something doesn't mean we should change the name of the article to it as it's not the actual name. Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 and Dignity

You removed content from Talk:Dignity without good reason and without discussing such removal first. That does not demonstrate WP:AGF. You may want to do some reading about the exercise of good faith and see WP:TALK.

You might be interested to know that I put the content which you removed from Talk:Dignity there at the request of Ludwigs2. If you go here, you will find this:

Pyrrhon, would you mind substantiating any of these claims of disruptive editing with diffs that show what you mean? --Ludwigs2 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of providing diffs, I had the courtesy to provide text. PYRRHON  talk   17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And the Dignity talk page is not the place to do such. If two editors are having such a discussion, please have it on your own talk pages. Article talk pages are for the improvement of the articles, not for two editors to back and forth with claims of disruptive editing and massive clutter of no relevance to improving that particular article. As a result I have removed it again. By all means post it to his talk page, or the ANI thread, but Talk:Dignity is most definitely not the place for it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is claiming that I am engaged in disruptive editing? PYRRHON  talk   17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, bad choice of words, but it still has no place on an article talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

I'm not sure that revert is approriate to this massive edit. I was reading through it some was good, parts needed editing a lot of updating of statistics etc. was done. I'm not a fan of such large edits as they are dificult to comprehend and untangle.Cathar11 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem is the exact same edit is continually made to that article, and mass cut and paste of the History article into it by many IP editors. Also if you look at the data that is changed, it's not as good as it first seems. This is a cut and paste of an older version of the article, not the updated version. It's a straight dump of a version from some time ago, completely bereft of other changes made since. It removes references, adds a POV slant that has been cleaned up previously, and uses older versions of census, GDP data etc. It's not an edit, it's a vandalism copy job. I understand how at first glance it may seem to be a valid edit, but trust me it isn't.

The exact same version appeared on the 23rd November 2009. Which was a modification of a version on 17th November. And several times previously. It is all the work of a banned sockpuppet Historian19. And it's not just this article taht they hit, they do the same on a couple of others. Canterbury Tail talk 02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

See my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR for British Isles related content on other articles?

Sorry for bringing this to your doorstep, but might you be willing to take a look at User talk:2over0#1RR? A few editors with strong opinions on whether and how the term British Isles should be used are discussing editing restrictions, but so far nobody has pointed to anything I feel comfortable enforcing. Roving bands editors reverting each other is clearly disruptive, but I would like to try to understand the wider situation before I make a mess of things. Any help or advice you might provide would be appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The editing restriction and 1RR only applies to the British Isles page itself. No other articles have any editing restrictions with regards to the British Isles to my knowledge. There has been calls for some kind of MOS for British Isles, and some community agreements, but no one can agree on what they should be so none have been forthcoming. So basically, 1RR on British Isles, everything else is open to normal Wikipedia rules. Canterbury Tail talk 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Community consensus

There is no way that the edits at the task force article should be considered as any kind of community consensus as you have claimed, that whole page is in need of discussion somewhere, personally I see the task force page as generally disruptive in itself and there is no wonder editors dispute the so called consensus that supposedly originates from that so called task force , you should take these details into consideration when you issue warnings to individual editors concerning any alterations claiming to have a wikipedia consensus appertaining to discussion on that page. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your personal feelings about the task force, the consensus there, in this particular case, was a community consensus of a good cross-section of the community. No different to it being discussed on the articles talk page. If the consensus had come about from a group of Irish nationalist editors only then I wouldn't consider it a good cross section consensus, but in this case it was a good mix of respected editors with differing viewpoints from different backgrounds and political ideals. Canterbury Tail talk 12:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your claim here, there a only a limited (connected) number of people commenting there, the articles talk page is indeed a much more open place to discuss the desired changes, discussing them on this little attended task force page and then going to the article with a false claim of a consensus is very troublesome and just wrong, and that is why this action is repeatedly creating trouble at almost every location ithe tactic is used. I and two other editors on the so called task force page dispute that any so called consensus arising from that page should be used to force edits into articles and should not be used to warn other editors that dispute the changes. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While I note that you have not applied a label to your grouping of HighKing, BigDunc, Sarah777, Þjóðólfr, DunlavinGreen I would like to point out that, whereas I believe the others are Irish Wikipedians, I am British. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Which county do you come from? Mister Flash (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hibernian Aviva have now updated their website

As you can see now at aviva.ie, "Hibernian Aviva" has now been removed from the website and replaced with "Aviva". At the bottom of the homepage you can see that the new official name is "Aviva Direct Ireland Limited". Is this now enough reason for the move? Thanks. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, seems reasonable to me. However not to Aviva Ireland, it seems the actual company name is Aviva Direct Ireland Limited. Canterbury Tail talk 22:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the one problem is what will the new name be? Wikipedia doesn't usually include the full company name in the name of articles, e.g. Tesco Ireland instead of Tesco Ireland Limited, Aviva instead of Aviva plc, Aviva Canada instead of Aviva Canada Inc. etc. What will we do? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And actually the corporate site says that the name of the group is Aviva Group Ireland plc. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, they never make it easy do they. I don't mind really, it doesn't bother me, however you think is best for it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft in Fiction

I fully understand why you nominated it. I agree with much of what you are saying. I simply am asking you to withdraw the AfD temporarily. Give us a week or two and see what the article looks like. Read the talk pages, we really are working on this. You'll see me pointing out the same things you are pointing out. If it is still the mess that it was 2 days ago, then I'll !vote delete right along with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		For your willingness to be patient and give other editors a chance to improve an article (that is admittedly a mess) and see if they can turn it into a useful addition to Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's been a week and I think we've made pretty good progress on the article. Different than before and much better sourcing. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I notice that, however I still think it's mostly a huge list of trivia at best. Though the text at the top is very good for an encyclopaedia article. We'll see how it goes. As it stands, I don't know. I may renom it just to get voices involved, I'm not sure. Canterbury Tail talk 17:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it is essentially a list of trivia. Like I said, my initial inclination was to nom if for AfD myself. But a couple of members of the Aviation project convinced me that it served a purpose towards keeping a lot of trivia and toy/game cruft out of more encylopedic articles. If it ends up serving that purpose, I can live with it existing. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Comment maybe be innocent or misunderstood, but appears innappopriate

CT, I strongly object to this comment you left:

• Votes don't count, only strength of argument. The two that disagreed have a history of nationalistic editing I'm afraid, and edit warring. And while I don't consider HighKing to be a white sheet, the agreement of GoodDay, Snowded and Jeanne Boleyn assists in the good balanced cross section consensus. If the agreement had been between the likes of HighKing, BigDunc, Sarah777, Þjóðólfr, DunlavinGreen etc then I wouldn't take it as a consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We have not always seen eye to eye, but what do you mean by "white sheet"? I'd love an explanation as to why you've chosen the names above too - otherwise one might believe you were failing WP:AGF, dismissing opinions of many editors in good standing, and falsely painting our edits as being related in some way. --HighKing (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Only mentioned as your log isn't purely clean (then again very few people's are.) I meant nothing personal by it and have respect for you and your edits. They are made in good faith with careful consideration. Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I also find your comments inflammatory and inappropriate, also not the kind of comments I would expect from an Administrator, unless you can support your accusation that I have a history of nationalistic editing then I request you strike your comment. Off2riorob (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever mentioned yourself of having nationalist editing tendencies, can you show where I said as much? I gave that group as they are a group that tend to have similar editing patterns. I was simply saying that that group of editors wouldn't have represented a good cross section of the community with differing views. Nothing was meant for it, and I have high respect for several of the editors I put on that list, and any kind of inflammatory comment towards them was certainly not the intention. Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I had made a bit of an assumption as I have been supporting Mr Flash in his resistance of this. I deplore nationalism and feel it is one of the worst things here on wikipedia. As I have previously stated, I care less the actual naming dispute, my position is that I feel the process that is being used to implement these changes is very weak and should not be used to push through changes or to reprimand or report editors like Highking that object to it. Apart from that, I wish I had never set eyes on the affair. Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

umm I think you mean Mr Flash not HighKing--Snowded ^TALK 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You and me both. High handed nationalist editing is the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia, and I keep meaning to stop as a result. However I just have a compulsion to stay here, it must be like crack or something. I'm sure they send something down the keyboard while on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 14:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Mr Flash, I have changed it. Indeed like crack coke somehow, how did I get involved, I remember saying to someone years ago, what, people work for free that will never catch on and now here I am joining in, oh dear. I have done this once previously and I will try again and remove the pages related to this issue off my watchlist, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As you know consensus is not reached by weight of numbers as wikipedia is not a democracy so your comments above seem ill advised. I consider you to be one of the good admins that are fair and even handed and am a little surprised by this offering. BigDunc 09:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

City of Derry Airport

Hi, I need your help concerning the City Of Derry Airport Page, Excessive vandilism which is reminicient of of Cyperfox1955... Changing all references to the City to Londonderry, conflicting with agreed stance on the topic. As you'll see from the edit history, today I've become involved in edit warring trying to prevent the vandalism. Can you be of any assistance? Thanks! --NorthernCounties (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. Feel free to do what you need to rectify the damage. Canterbury Tail talk 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Much Appreciated! --NorthernCounties (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just come across this nonsense. For your information the edits "A5 Road Dualling Londonderry to Aughnacloy" [26] and the "A6 Dualling Dungiven to Londonderry" [27] refer to the proper scheme names as stated by the DRD Roads Service. These are the official Government names for the schemes with the city properly indentified as Londonderry, showing the scheme name in any other format is incorrect. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

Howdy, you were asking me about my stalker. See my talkpage for further info. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: A fellow administrator you may want to join forces with on this issue, is Rockpocket. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User page notification of deletion

I see you deleted The battling kings. I agree entirely: in fact I was in the act of tagging it for speedy deletion myself when you did so. However, I notice that you did not give the author of the article a notification on their user talk page. I think it is almost always a courtesy to do so, particularly when, as in this case, the author is a new user, and may have no idea of WIkipedia's policies, and so no idea why the article has been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Sorry. Canterbury Tail talk 14:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)