User talk:Lawsonrob

Lindisfarne Gospels

Hi Lawsonrob, I notice that you have an interest in describing the Lindisfarne Gospels as stolen from Durham Cathedral. So far as I know, it is not known under what circumsances the manuscript left Durham Cathedral. The word "stolen" implies an illegal taking. However, if in fact, as s widely asumed the manuscrit was removed as part of the Dissolution of the Monastaries, then it would not have been illegal under the laws of the time. To insit on using the word stolen would violate WP:NPOV. Dsmdgold 10:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crédit Agricole and Global Finance

Do you have a full reference for the article in Global Finance which you're using to support points on Crédit Agricole? WP:CITE essentially says that you should leave enough detail for someone else to find the details that you're refering to, all I managed to find was this which tells a different story to what you included. Until there is a verifiable reference I'm afraid it will have to be tagged again. Many thanks. Ian3055 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Miliband

Hiya, I've slightly changed the phraseology re: night of the long knives on the David Miliband page - it's not exactly been used widely throughout the day and I can only find it in the one BBC article I've referenced on the page. I think the "almost brutal" comment from the beeb article fits better; there's not been references or parallels drawn with Macmillan in 1962. Hope that sounds reasonable. Iancaddy 23:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Graber

Hi Lawsonrob, I noticed that you recreated Sheila Graber with the edit summary "Reinstated page, what is it your business to decide who is a 'non-notable person'?" Please see Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant discussion. I did a search and it turns out that the person actually has received some awards, and is therefore probably notable. Sorry for being deleting administrator number three. I would urge you to add concrete information about Ms. Graber's notability - specific awards received and when, etc, rather than generally stating her animation is "award winning". There are literally hundreds of articles created every day on Wikipedia with people stating everything from "Person X is the King of France and universally acclaimed as a rock god" to thoroughly factual "Person X was born in 1991 and is a member of the debating club" to elaborate false biographies that people think would be fun to get into Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on volunteers scanning the flow of new submissions and you appear to have run into somebody who looked askance at your original posting. In the future, if you feel that an article you have created has been inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion, please put the template {{hangon}} on the article and explain your reasoning on the article talk page or alternatively at Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. Simply recreating content tends to confirm the initial judgement that the information is bogus or not worthy of inclusion. You don't appear to have received the official welcome yet, despite being here awhile, so I'll add it below:

Welcome!

Hello, Lawsonrob, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! - Banyan Tree 01:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page ASDA on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 | T | C | @ 23:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Hi, please post comments on User talk pages, not User pages. Your changes to User:M1ss1ontomars2k4 were removed -- Samir धर्म 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...with respect to the article ASDA, I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by your calling me a "meddlesome individual". And as for "systems unknown", my edit summary specifically stated that I used VandalProof. And that ASDA targets lower-class people is not my viewpoint, but you failed to leave an edit summary, so there was no way to tell that you weren't simply trying to paint ASDA in a more positive light, which would have been a violation of WP:NPOV. For future reference, though, I don't currently have any officially-held roles on Wikipedia. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 | T | C | @ 23:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsonrob, I see that you have again added your message on M1ss1ontomars2k4's user page instead of the talk page. This is vandalism and I have reverted it. Please stop posting messages like this on user pages. You should also sign messages you leave on talk pages, you can do this by adding ~~~~ after your comment, which automatically gets replaced with your signature. I also thought your message to M1ss1ontomars2k4 was highly inappropriate. Thanks, Gw e rnol 23:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life

I'm a doctor and my girlfriend's a model. Thanks for the advice on life, but I'm doing better than you ever will -- Samir धर्म 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samir, I have read your homepage on Wikipedia and you come across as the most smug, self satisfied and arrogant person in the world. Just so that you know, being a doctor does not make you a demi-god. --213.121.207.34 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, for once we agree on something lawsonrob 17.20 14 June 2006

South Shields

Had a good laugh reading the above - seems you are a bit of a fractious individual! Anyway, we have been having a bit of an edit war on the South Shields page re: meaning of Geordie. I have therefore drafted a compromise which I hope suits. Cheers --213.121.207.34 09:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gates

Hi, and thanks for your edit to Bill Gates - however, it is noted in the article that as per WP:MoS, the notation KBE should not be put after his name - the edit has been reverted. Thanks! HawkerTyphoon 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsbury's

Why are you making pointless edits to this article? For example putting back the logo you uploaded, even though I replaced it with a far better quality image and also one which fits inside a thumbnail box!

Also replacing

"Sainsbury's did operate "Sainsbury's SavaCentres" which was launched as a joint venture with BHS in 1975 and became a wholly owned Sainsbury's subsidiary in 1989. In 1999 this format was merged into the regular superstore format."

with

"Sainsbury's did operate "Sainsbury's SavaCentres", originally a joint venture with BHS, but merged theses stores into the regular superstore format when the company relaunched in 2001."

The problem I have with your paragraph is the first is far more descriptive and correct. Your paragraph doesn't mention when it was founded, when BHS was bought out, and the decision to merge the format into regular Sainsbury's stores was made in 1999. Also when what "company relaunched in 2001"? Some of your edits were good, but if you can't stand them being improved upon then you haven't embraced the spirit of the project. Regards Mark83 14:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sainsburys old logo.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Sainsburys old logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mark83 14:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Robson

Could you please be kind enough to stop refraining from adding that Bobby Robson appears to have aged consderably after his operation. He's battled cancer three times now, of course it is going to eventually catch up with him! He's also in his 70s, a time when the best of us physically age. It just seems like a rather pointless addition. Regards. hedpeguyuk 27 June 2006, 11:30 (UTC)

Your edit to Fred Dibnah

Just a message about your recent edits to the Fred Dibnah article. I have left some points at the talk page about the use of counties.... I trust you have familliarised yourself with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) - which stipulate that we should indeed use the current, post 1974 modern county systems in articles.

That is to say, you are quite within your rights to edit articles to say that places such as Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham etc are all in Greater Manchester, mentions of Lancashire should be placed as a mere afternote for historical context.

Given that Fred Dibnah was born before the government boundary changes, we should say that he was born in Bolton, Lancashire. Mentions of Greater Manchester as an afternote are quite permissible, and you were quite within your rights to edit the article in such a way.

If you take an interest in this field, I'd advise you to read up on articles such as County Watch - affilates of this group often use Wikipedia to promote their agenda, cause edit wars and bully other users, which resulted in the formation of the county naming conventions.

I hope I've helped somewhat. Please feel free to message me any time should you need support in this matter or others. Keep up the good work, Jhamez84 19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--No probs!... glad to help. Jhamez84 10:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Freddy Shepherd

Hi Lawsonrob, I've removed the text you readded to this article as it was unsourced and negative. Can you please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and you'll get an idea of why this sort of material can't be added without very good sources. Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsonrob - you seem to have not read the above article. Disparaging material that does not have a reliable source has no place in the Bio of a living person. I've reverted your edit and will continue to do so until you provide a reliable reference - Peripitus (Talk) 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lawsonrob - a much better line now ! - Peripitus (Talk) 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please start using edit summaries. It's a pain to ahve to go into each of your edits to see what it was; their use is a small courtesy to other editors of this site. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Edit summaries

Please start using edit summaries, particularly when you are making potentially controversial edits such as removing an image listed for deletion, as you did with the ASDA article. Mark83 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 20:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of "citation" tags

Regarding your removal of a "citation needed" tag I placed in Kwik Save; I have reverted this. It is absolutely not acceptable to do this without providing a reference and/or clear (and justified) explanation for the removal. (You can do this either via the edit summary or refer to the talk page if there is not enough room.)

I also notice that you removed the tags I placed a month ago; I should have spotted this at the time and am putting them back.

If you need advice on including references, please ask someone for help.

Any further removal of tags without a suitable replacement/explanation will be treated as vandalism. Fourohfour 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional; having checked, I notice that it was you who added some of the disputed material in the first place (in these edits), I would like to know where you got the paragraph starting "Also, it could be argued that the British consumer has moved on." from. This sounds like original research to me, since it doesn't tell us who said it. Fourohfour 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says it all that you removed the tags again without backing up your unsourced "facts" (read: probable speculation by yourself)... and then you tried to pass this off as reversion of vandalism(!). Was this in response to my last comment?

Childish.

Feel free to explain this at Talk:Kwik_Save#Lawsonrob's_tag_removal; I've requested the involvement of a neutral third party. Fourohfour 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Grouse 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice removed a citation tag from Famous Residents of South Shields. That article has no references, contrary to WP:Cite. Please do not remove that tag again unless you provide the missing references. WVhybrid 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page comments

In the future, please sign your talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comment. It makes life much easier for those you are trying to communicate to if you take the time and courtesy to sign each time. (You can set your profile to remind you each time to sign your posts.) Thank you. WVhybrid 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Corbett Cresswell

Rob: I deleted your reference to Corbett Cresswell because:

The reference didn't provide the needed fact - that Corbett Cresswell was a resident of South Shields.

In addition, the reference you provided wasn't formated correctly (but if it had been a useful reference, I would have taken the trouble to correct your error.)

Look, man, you obviously know something about this subject. Why don't you show you know how to improve your attitude, say by, adding some relevant references, adding notes to your edit box before saving, and signing your edits. (You've been told how to do that before.) Thanks. WVhybrid 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsonrob: Thank you for signing your post on my talk page. I appreciate the courtesy. And thank you for the reference. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Please see WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. Again, thank you. WVhybrid 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Mr. Lawson, good to hear from you again.

But I'm afraid that once again we are not in agreement. Your statement that a birthplace does not require a reference is not correct. All facts need citation in Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOR. Specifically, the policy states:Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.

In the case of Sheila Graber, quite frankly I don't I don't have any way of knowing if the asserted fact is correct. Is there some intrinsic reason anyone should know this fact without a citation? Facts without citations are not part of Wikipedia's policies. I agree that the references provided confirm that the person is notable. But none of the references provide the fact at hand, that is, that Ms. Graber is associated with South Shields. As for the other folks you mention, the references do provide a relation to the towns you mentioned. I'm sure that somewhere this fact is published. I can't find it anywhere. If you can, please provide it.

One more item, Rob. Your statement about when tags are needed is not in alignment with WP:AGF. Per WP:AGF, I think I deserve the benefit of a doubt, that I'm trying to improve the encylcopedic value of the articles I edit. I certainly have done nothing to impune either the article or the editor when I ask for references. I've simply asked for references, nothing more, nothing less.

My motivation behind all of these reference requests is straightforward, Rob. I want to bring the article Famous Residents of South Shields up to featured list status. That goal won't be reached without the specific reference for each person on the list. Why don't chip in and help me find the last few missing references, then we can both have a little pride of accomplishment. WVhybrid 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Morrisons" reversions

(Comment moved here by Fourohfour following incorrect placement on Lawsonrob user page). - Apologies for the honest mistake John the mackem 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep reverting this line on the Morrisons article:

All new-build Morrisons stores include a clock tower, usually above the main entrance. This means that most former Safeway stores can be identified by their lack of this feature. Exceptions to this would include older Morrisons stores, such as the branch in Leeds city centre.

The reason is that it does not make sense. The line says "All new-build Morrisons stores", therefore older stores such as the one in Leeds are not exceptions to a rule, because they're not newly-built stores. John the mackem 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton

Hi, please don't make copy and paste moves (see Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves). You can request controversial moves or uncontroversial, you can't do, at Wikipedia:Requested Moves (see also Help:Moving a page). By the way on articles about peers it is usage to include the title (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 09:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Please avoid copy and paste moves, these could be considered as vandalism. Thanks ~~ Phoe _talk 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

David Clark, Baron Clark of Windermere

Hi, please don't change his title to a wrong form - he was made Baron Clark of Windermere (see http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=26578). Kenneth Clark was made Baron Clark. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

How I said above, his title is Baron Clark of Windermere, of Windermere in the County of Cumbria (see here the announcement of his peerage in the London Gazette [1]). Here you can see his profile on the Forestry Commission [2], here his voting records on "The Public Whip" [3] and here his parliamentary speeches on "TheyWorkForYou" [4]. Finally his title is confirmed by the minutes of proceeding of his introduction at the House of Lords [5] - so don't please change his title again (what otherwise would be considered as vandalism). ~~ Phoe _talk 06:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

I have reported you on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lawsonrob. Phoe 09:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Dibnah was born in Lancashire

When Fred Dibnah was born in 1938, Bolton was then in Lancashire. Yes, since 1974 Bolton now part of Greater Manchester.
Take a look at some other Wikipedia articles from other places. Rajiv Gandhi was born in the then Mumbai, Bombay Presidency, British India, BUT according to you he was born Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Should I change that article to the present time?
Someone could have been born in the former Yugoslavia, but according to your interpretation that can’t be. It’d be Serbia or Croatia or Macedonia, etc, and ignore the fact they were born at the time in Yugoslavia.
I could cite many articles of people’s birth at the time, and not the present time. Should we say Queen Victoria was born in Kensington in Greater London, although at the time Kensington was part of Middlesex?
Many encyclopedia articles take things in context of the time. Wikipedia is no different. It is correct that when Fred Dibnah was born in 1938 in Bolton, Lancashire, England. Cayden (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you don't bother to reply to people's posts on you discussion page. Cayden (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll options on Fred Dibnah's birthplace

I've started a poll on Talk:Fred_Dibnah with four options for his birthplace area. As you've left posts on that discussion page, I'm letting you know about this Poll and the chance to vote one of the options. Cayden (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Fred Dibnah

Please note that excessive, repeated reverts to articles are considered by the editting community to be distruptive editting.

On Apil 22, you reverted the Fred Dibnah article no less than eleven times. This is in breach of the Three Revert Rule and would usually result in a user requesting a ban be placed upon your account.

Please consider this an explicit warning not to revert articles more than three times within a rolling 24 hour period. If you find yourself in an edit war, please report the other offender rather than encourage or engage in reverting articles to illustrate a point.

This is not an endorsment of either standpoint, and as such, I have posted the same warning to User:Cayden too. Jhamez84 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisons

Hi. I was inclined to revert your edit - principally because the Morrisons website has still to show the logo and because the website press release said July. However before I reverted I went looking some more, and since this PDF news release features the new logo, I agree the new one should be displayed in the infobox.

Since we are free to voice our POV on talk pages, I've gotta say it seems a botched launch of a botched logo; they had the chance to reinvent themselves and in my humble opinion failed spectacularly. They talk about "preserving recognition" - but many companies have introduced radically different logos and reaped the rewards. They are spending millions on a logo that is nothing more than a superficial facelift of the old one. Hope it works for them, but can't see it. Mark83 23:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, it smacks of a compromise between Bolland and Sir Ken. To be honest, if they're going for evolution rather than revolution, they might as well not have bothered, especially as it's going to cost the equivalent of 18 months profit at current levels. The team who supervised the Safeway conversion must be really annoyed, all that work for signs that are going to be ripped down again. ~~Mark83 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)~~ Lawsonrob 11:30 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the comments. I don't want to make too much of this, I just would like to know what you're doing applying my signature to a comment of yours? Now I agree with everything you said, however you'll understand that I will not stand for others signing their comments under my username as I alone prefer to decide what opinions are attributed to me. Thanks Mark83 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as you can probably see it was a reply to your comment and I had cut and pasted your signature, meaning to change the name to my own. Must have got distracted or something, no offence intended. Lawsonrob 1815, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

None taken. Cheers. Mark83 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And going back to your comments - I couldn't agree more. Not only are they missing a massive opportunity to reinvent themselves, but as you said ripping down Morrison signs that have been on ex-Safeway sites for only a year or two makes the mistake all the more graphic. Like I said, good luck to them, but as an outsider I think it will not help sales and cost them a fortune! Mark83 22:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be 'originally born' somewhere?

Best edit summary of the day. Shows how much attention I've given that particular item of my watchlist. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somerfield Crew Events

My mistake. Sorry. Aremith^Talk 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries (2nd attempt)

Please use edit summaries, especially when making substantive changes. Thank you. Mark83 19:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsonrob (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 May 2007

Childish vandalism

Please do not introduce any form of vandalism to the userpages of other users, as you did to User:DrFrench. You've been around long enough to know that sort of behaviour is just not acceptable on Wikipedia. Neither is it OK to go back to edit/revert changes I have made to other pages just because your incensed that I added a citation needed tag to one of your favourite articles. Let's try to keep it WP:CIVIL now DrFrench 00:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was also a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. DrFrench was perfectly justified in requesting citations - the burden of proof is on the contributor, not on the user challenging the content. I have been concerned about your attitude for a while (e.g. your response to my comment above). Please calm down, be respectful of others and do not be disruptive to make a point. Thank you for your time. Mark83 01:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that you would apologise for your childish vandalism. If you'd just said something like "Ooh I was a bit tipsy, had a bad day, sorry", I'd had have thought no more about it. But although you've had plenty time to do so, you've chosen not to apologise. That's your perogative. However, you've clearly shown that you can't work by WP:CONSENSUS, you seem to feel that you have WP:OWNERSHIP of certain articles and can't keep it WP:CIVIL during a difference of opinion over content. As a result you have lost the right to have good faith assumed (WP:AGF) by me. Maybe you should have a good think about what you're trying to achieve on Wikipedia, because if you can't work collaberatively with other people, then it's juat going to be a waste of everybody's time and no-one's going to be happy. DrFrench 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Morrlogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Morrlogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of "citation needed" tags

You already know from your involvement with the Kwik Save article that removal of tags without a proper explanation (either via the edit summary or talk page) is considered vandalism.

Your summary for this edit in the Somerfield article ("rmv unnecessary citation tags") does not explain anything, so I have reverted the changes. If you have a problem with this, discuss the issue properly. Fourohfour 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawsonrob (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DrFrench 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how when I dare to question a citation tag inserted by DrFrench or Fourohfour, I am accused of vandalism and the rules of Wikipedia are cited most stringently. Yet when they choose to insert such citation tags, no such explanation is offered. When these tags are inserted into South Shields, Kwik Save or Somerfield, it is usually for facts or assertions so generic that no such information would be requested elsewhere on the site, yet for daring to challenge them and reverting these tags, you are treated as an unwelcome sore on the face of Wikipedia. Strangely, when you seek to take these issues beyond the initial reversion by said parties (and others, I must say) the threats of vandalism and banishment from Wikipedia are rarely carried through.

Is this, I wonder, because they know in their heart of hearts that they are wrong and that the independent spirit of Wikipedia is being destroyed by those who would hide behind an elaborate members' page and pretend that they own the place. I say NO, I say that anyone should be able to asset their opinions on this site and that it should be as legitimate to state that a citation is not required as it is to state the opposite. You may well spend half your life on Wikipedia, that's up to you - I'm not that sad and quite frankly I don't care - but please don't patronise those who work to keep this community independent and beyond the control of those who seem to live for it, usually individuals so far removed from the real world that they don't have a clue what's actually going on.

Yes, I have vandalised the sites and amendments of those so anally retentive that they seek to destroy the independence and impartiality on which Wikpedia was founded, and I make no apology for that. What I should have learned to appreciate is that they are so collectively thick it will have no effect. Some things on this site must be taken on trust as no person, living or otherwise, has the capacity to reference every single point of every article on Wikipedia. When you start asking for references on the type of shelves that Kwik Save had in the 1990s, then you are quite frankly taking the piss. If someone has taken the time and effort to write about something so obscure, maybe you should think about their motives before demanding a citation! lawsonrob 22 June 2007, 01:02

Fourohfour's reply

(Note: Same comment posted at Somerfield talk, Kwik Save talk. I'm responding here to keep the discussion in one place.) Fourohfour 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; let's go through what you said. (Your comments indented, edited for length where shown).

It's funny how when I dare to question a citation tag [..] I am accused of vandalism and the rules of Wikipedia are cited most stringently. Yet when they choose to insert such citation tags, no such explanation is offered.

If you thought I inserted these tags in bad faith, or was being petty, you should have said that in the edit summary, and I would have explained things at the talk page. Instead you just said "rmv unnecessary citation tags". What is "unnecessary" supposed to mean?

Strangely, when you seek to take these issues beyond the initial reversion by said parties (and others, I must say) the threats of vandalism and banishment from Wikipedia are rarely carried through.

Banishment from Wikipedia is a last resort, and I certainly haven't threatened you with that personally. Also, the standard Wikipedia warning templates that are often used contain references to blocking; not the fault of the people who use them.

Is this, I wonder, because they know in their heart of hearts that they are wrong and that the independent spirit of Wikipedia is being destroyed by those who would hide behind an elaborate members' page

"Elaborate"?! You think that my user page is "elaborate"? You've got to be kidding.

DrFrench's user page is more elaborate, but most of that is decorative personal stuff. I'm not a fan of that style of page personally, but I certainly don't think he's "hiding behind" it.

pretend that they own the place

That's a vague charge anyone could spend all day defending themselves against. If I quote policy, it's because I know what's going on here, not because I think I "own the place".

I say NO, I say that anyone should be able to asset their opinions on this site and that it should be as legitimate to state that a citation is not required as it is to state the opposite

You may think that, but the official policy on this subject is that whenever a fact is disputed, the contributor (or someone) should be able to back it up with a reliable reference.

If you think I'm gaming the system, please raise the disputed tags and I'll explain them.

Some things on this site must be taken on trust as no person, living or otherwise, has the capacity to reference every single point of every article on Wikipedia.

Yes, you'll notice that I've edited countless articles full of countless uncited statements and not bothered tagging them. I like references; they make articles better, but I don't tag requests on just for the hell of it.

When you start asking for references on the type of shelves that Kwik Save had in the 1990s, then you are quite frankly taking the piss.

I assume you mean this? Then you'll notice that no-one asked for references on "the type of shelves that Kwik Save had in the 1990s", so stop distorting the truth. I asked for backup that "many outlets were not suitable for conversion, either due to size or location". Nothing more.

The problem that Kwik Save had and Somerfield still has is this: Lots of people are coming along and adding "facts" that could be from reputable published sources, or they could just be half-baked and uninformed speculation from people who are just guessing.

And you know something? The Kwik Save article is a lot better than it used to be. Rather than whine about it as you do, someone got off their ass and cited a lot of the tagged stuff. Result is that the article can be taken much more seriously because we know it's not made out of speculation some random guy pulled out of wherever.

That's another thing. If these things are so obvious, it should be easy to find good references for them. Kwik Save and Somerfield are prime candidates for this; if it's citable, it should be easily citable, if it's not, it probably doesn't belong. Simple.

If someone has taken the time and effort to write about something so obscure, maybe you should think about their motives before demanding a citation!

This has nothing to do with their motives. I believe that the vast majority of contributors edit in good faith.

At the same time, that doesn't mean that the quality of the information is reliable. Citations are evidence of the information's reliability.

You may well spend half your life on Wikipedia, that's up to you - I'm not that sad and quite frankly I don't care

Whether I'm spending too much time on Wikipedia at the minute is my business. I am, but that's my problem, not yours.

but please don't patronise those who work to keep this community independent and beyond the control of those who seem to live for it, usually individuals so far removed from the real world that they don't have a clue what's actually going on.

You accuse me of acting like I "own the place", but you're the one acting like a self-righteous, self-appointed voice of the ordinary guy, defending the independence of Wikipedia against a cabal of sad hardcore users.

Way to go with the self-importance. Don't kid yourself; this is a small dispute over your removal of tags and nothing more. It has nothing to do with the "independence" of Wikipedia.

I love the way some people take their own interpersonal disputes and squabbles and kid themselves that they're fighting a battle for some great principle that they're in the right on.

Yes, I have vandalised the sites and amendments of those so anally retentive that they seek to destroy the independence and impartiality on which Wikpedia was founded, and I make no apology for that.

Just.... amazing. You're actually telling us that rather than carrying out some petty and childish vandalism in a minor dispute, you were really trying to fight for the independence and principles of Wikipedia?!

The truly pathetic thing is, you probably believe this self-justifying rubbish.

the independent spirit of Wikipedia is being destroyed

You're the same person who'd been at Wikipedia for a year(!), and *still* didn't know have a clue about the "No Original Research" policy- one of the fundamental pillars that makes Wikipedia what it is. The same person who still has- at best- a vague understanding of the rules on verifiability after all this time?

And you've got the nerve to lecture anyone on what Wikipedia is and isn't??!!

You don't have a clue about this place. Never have, never will. Fourohfour 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect moves

Stop moving pages contrary to the Manual of Style. Proteus (Talk) 07:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please stop. On Billy Blyton please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names Point 2, peerages should be used unless they are the likes of Thatcher or Callaghan. Middle names should never be used unless they regulary used them, we should use what they are commonly known by (ie Tony Blair, not Anthony Blair). Therefore Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton is correct per MofS and changing is vandalism. On Lord Clark is peerage is "Baron Clark of Windermere", so the page is correct. Removing "of Windermere" is deeply wrong becasue "Baron Clark" is not his title. --UpDown 18:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm now going to report you. You are vandalising, and have broken 3RR. --UpDown 18:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your constant disruption, and flying in the face of established conventions, policies and consensus have earned you a block. Have a nice day. Circeus 19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sheila Graber

A tag has been placed on Sheila Graber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bvlax2005 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Safeway logo uk.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Safeway logo uk.jpeg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sandancer

The article Sandancer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Trivial and unreferenced. Only contains speculation on what the name might might, not actual fact.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]