User talk:Redvers/Archive41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

historic logos

Just an FYI, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK has been opened concerning the question of whether historic logos may be used in Radio and TV station articles.--RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Band

Can you tell me why my page was deleted? I am not sure how to properly list that page then... I need guidance and the band is signed, which is a requirement, has a discography, and I listed the applicable sites... Could you possibly make revisions to it for me? - KoastalBenefitPromo —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoastalBenefitPromo (talk • contribs)

You should not write an article about a subject in which you have a conflict of interest. You should also not write an article in order to advertise a product, service or group. You should not write an article about musical groups that are not notable. You should therefore not be paid to write an article to advertise a band on Wikipedia. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 10:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get paid to advertise them. They have a label, are spun on numerous radio stations, have played on tour with Three Days Grace, Cold, Nonpoint, Jet Black Stare, Skindred, Halestorm, Taproot and more. The have a full length CD produced that is for sale on itunes, amazon, cd baby, napster, and etc. They tour and play to packed venues. Not sure why they wouldn't be notable? Please let me know what to do, seeing is how I did not get paid to publish this article... I am going to post a page up on wikipedia, seeing as they deserve one. Living Syndication, Royal Bliss, and hundreds of others have a page on wikipedia and is another band locally that has not nearly the same resume or stature as Novus Dae. So are you saying if I were to post the article, just write it non biased and not selling and it will be accepatble then? - KoastalBenefitPromo

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Opened case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK

Hello. The Mediaction Cabal case created by User:RadioFan has been opened by me. Please comments at the case page if you of whether accept mediation or not. Note, unlike arbitration, mediation is non-binding. Regards, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Redvers

A legit christmas greetings. I have no use for superficial Christmas pleasantries either, but I do sincerely appreciate your contributions and want you to know that for all the times I've seen your name on my screen over the past year (or so) it's always been a good thing. So merry christmas. Good luck to you. Shadowjams (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

opposition

Hello, I have removed the tory and lib dem spokespeople form the UK government department articles as the are irrelevant to the running of the dept and it is biased against the parties in the UK Parliament .--82.23.116.146 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree and have added them back. The information is not "irrelevant", it is useful, sourced, verifiable information that is part of how government and parliament is run (the SoS and the ministers have to face their shadows across the despatch box weekly and across the Today programme's studio almost as often) so the information couldn't be more relevant if it tried. If you want to add the spokespeople for the minor parties, then please do so: however, with devolution, that information actually is irrelevant in most cases. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
If people want to know who the Shadow spokespeople are the can easily see this on the relevant articles,Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet Liberal Democrat Frontbench Team, --82.23.116.146 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
So, if I want to know which right-wing loon is shadow secretary for culture, rather than going to the DCMS page, I have to go to a completely different page and pick the information out of a list? That's hardly convenient and productive, is it? ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Malvern Instruments - Please explain

Can you explain why you have deleted my wiki article. Not exactly the friendliest welcome to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven.redgewell (talk • contribs)

MJK3K This was taken from our compnay press release. We (as in Malvern Instruments) agree for this to be published so thus isnt a copyright breach as we OWN the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjk3k (talk • contribs)

I've replied on your talk page, explaining that you have a severe conflict of interest in this subject and also how you mustn't use Wikipedia for advertising. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Steven.redgewell (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your reply, however I cannot agree with your comments. We do not intend on using Wikipedia for adverting purposes and I would greatly appreciate it if you could indicate where we have advertised on the article. Malvern Instruments has contributed greatly to the world of particle science and material characterisation, and it is our aim to relate this to existing wikipedia articles.

I would really appreciate your help on this issue as we don't want to breach wikipedia terms, but we do want to become great contributors. Could you also justify deleting the article, rather than simply removing or indicating what content should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven.redgewell (talk • contribs)

You are employed by Malvern; you copied-and-pasted a press release extolling the virtues and uniqueness of Malvern into Wikipedia (a not-for-profit website run by volunteers and funded by charitable donations). The resulting article could not be turned into less than an advert except by hard work by volunteers to find reliable, third party sources. There was nothing to remove to make the article acceptable; the entire thing was a press release, as you colleague admits. Press releases do not make for a neutral, sourced statement of facts.
Added to that, a point that you don't seem to want to accept, is that you have a severe conflict of interest in this matter because you are paid by Malvern. I have posted you links on our policy about this: you should not be editing in relation to the company you work for. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, however you are making a huge assumption that we are current employees of Malvern Instruments (http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/4123632.Malvern_Instruments_announces_redundancies/). I do take on board your comments about copy-and-paste and will rewrite the article to your recommendations. Could you return the article so I can make these ammendments?

Many thanks for all of your help. Steven.redgewell (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A huge assumption? Quote: "This was taken from our compnay press release. We (as in Malvern Instruments) agree...". Even if you are now, suddenly, former employees, you still have a severe conflict of interest on this subject and must not write or edit about the company. Also, if you are now, suddenly, former employees of Malvern, then you don't have the right to release the text of the press release under our Creative Commons licence and I am therefore forbidden from undeleting this copyright violation. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your reply and comments, however I am sensing a hint of sarcasm in your response and take an instant dislike to such low forms of communication. The quote you reffered to is in the past tense, and after working for Malvern for many years we still feel a part of the company.

Clearly you have a much greater knowledge of Wikipedia than myself and would have expected someone with such knowledge to help rather than hinder the newer Wikipedia community.

My intention was to create an article about a company which has had a big role to play in a special scientific field. However if this is not allowed from me, maybe I should look for a new hobby Steven.redgewell (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No sarcasm. "We (as in Malvern Instruments) agree..." is in the present tense. Whether you are current employees (as originally said) or former employees (as later said), you still have a severe conflict of interest on this subject and must not write or edit about the company. Additionally, as you are now former employees, you do not have the right to release the press release under a Creative Commons licence. I'd like to help you, but since you don't agree with either of these policies, we can't move on. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can do nothing but agree with the policies. However the conflict of interest one prevents me writing anything about Malvern Instruments. So what you are trying to say is Malvern Instruments cannot have a Wikipedia page, unless someone completely unrelated (Customers, employees, former employees, friends and family of former employees) to the company writes the article. Due to the nature of the business, there is nobody unrelated to the company that would have anything to do with them. Meaning Malvern Instruments cannot have a wikipedia page, period.

Thank your for all of your comments and clarification on the policies. Best wishes Steven.redgewell (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, basically, that's true. And if there is truly nobody who would know anything about the company without having worked for them, then the company would fail our requirements for entries in Wikipedia to be notable. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis your talk page header

But ... what if I want to bicker?

Just joking. Thanks for blocking 83.227.233.187 [1].

Happy New Year, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't see the {{Nocommons}} tag at the bottom of the image. I've removed the notice. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Redvers/Say no to Commons

Hi. Could you please tone this essay down a bit? I've got no problem with the sentiments it's trying to display, but in its current form I find it a bit offensive. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No. But thanks for asking. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 07:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Have a nice day, then. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Purplees

Hello, Redvers. I was looking at some of the recent changes at the PS3 article and saw that you recently blocked Purplees for his/her vandalism. However, in the process, it seems that Purplees's talk page was inadvertently cleared of all of its contents, including the multiple warnings he/she had received for earlier vandalism. So I wanted to let you know that I just restored the contents of that talk page to make sure that it reflects the user's talk page history (which, of course, consists entirely of vandalism warnings!). Regards, • CinchBug • 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi CinchBug! No, it was deliberately cleared. Once the user is indef blocked, the warnings become redundant (they're still in the history if needed, but they're never needed); the block notice is clearer replacing the page rather than down at the bottom (which saves puzzled/angry emails); and the blocking template adds the page to a timed-deletion schedule, so the page will be deleted soon anyway. Also, serial vandals often like to see lots of warnings and clearing the page denies them this pleasure. No upsides to keeping the warnings, plenty of downsides. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

98.15.131.75 80.176.233.6 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The category vandal is back. 98.15.131.75 80.176.233.6 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta. Got him, blocked that IP 3 months and another also for 3 months. Depressing amount of clean-up required. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
63.118.16.167 now. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Blocked 3 months. Ta for the clean-up. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

XtC x

Hi, it's entirely possible that I'm missing something here, but from what I can see (being unable to view deleted edits) it appears this person created an article and then removed the CSD tags from it. Unless there is something greater which I have missed, I would respectfully enquire as to whether you might consider lessening your block to a 24/31 hour block rather than an indef for their first attempt at editing. If I have missed a bigger issue, then I apologise for wasting your time. HJMitchell You rang? 12:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you missed a bigger issue. The created page was a set of stats, being updated minute-by-minute, for an in-progress World of Warcraft game. The user didn't accidentally create a not-very-good article and edit war over keeping it, they deliberately created a whiteboard on Wikipedia for a single purpose with no intent to build articles. Then they recruited others in their "clan" to start adding stats to it. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 12:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mind Control Revision

Thanks for reverting those changes. I was about to read the article and I saw a massive wall of text that had virtually nothing to do with the subject. I was thinking about reverting it, but refreshed the page and saw it had been fixed. -Commandur (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Balkishmf

I have counseled Balkishmf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jaffilous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding conflict of interest and unblocked them. Fred Talk 00:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The issue wasn't conflict of interest, the issue was spam - they were blocked due to the huge number of copies of the spamvertisement they posted in the mainspace and in userspace. And now they've started again in userspace. Also, below, they want to create the spam again. Good luck on sorting that, Fred. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Medini Iskandar Malaysia

Thanks to Fred,

Requesting to edit Medini Iskandar Malaysia page for the following reason: 1.We are the information provider for the Medini Iskandar Malaysia 2.Wikipedia Internal link to Medini Iskandar Malaysia (MIM) is missing from IRDA, Iskandar Investment, Iskandar Malaysia, we have to fill the gap. 3.This crutial for Malaysia as Medini Land is under the Act under section 19 and 21 also know as Node 1. 4.On Ads and promotional, we have edited the content to meet the required guidelines 5.We have been counseled by Fred on the COI. We understand better now.

Appreciate your assistance.

--JJay (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • You'll need to deal with Fred on this. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Redvers. You have new messages at WP:ANI.
Message added 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied with an opinion of mine. Minimac94 (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit at Canadian Restaurants

I think it's more than just a list of restaurants. there are bios for the parent companies not just single restaurants but mini profiles of the restaurants in some of the companies are also provided. for example Opa souvlaki of Greece and the parent company of scores, pizza delight do not have their pages. when people search for them on wikipedia Canadian Restaurants is the only article that comes up and enough information might be provided to justify the non free image for a couple of the companies (for example the parent company of scores and pizza delight, that image is also very low quality). there are a couple other restaurant chains known as opa in Canada for example opa taverna. The logo helps people differentiate between them.Grmike (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:York station zero post.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:York station zero post.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Adambro (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Adambro (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You just won't drop the stick, will you? Ironic that you should express annoyance that I feel Commons editors are acting like bullies and then... well, start bullying. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was frustrated that you'd removed by comments from your talk page rather than replying and acted on impulse rather than thinking things through more properly. I still remain of the opinion that requests to keep content locally aren't particularly constructive but neither would me wasting time arguing about it. Adambro (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the welcome you posted on my talk page. I am new to Wikipedia, and I appreciate the courtesy! SplendidYam (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

100% Records

Hi there, I previously made a page that was instantly deleted by you because I think basically it was deemed to be too promotional? I've spent a week now trying to fix the issues that came up regarding it, but now I've come to publish another version of the page which is more encyclopaedic and hopefully it doesn't now give out the wrong impression. I don't really know if this is the right thing to do or within the constraints of proper conduct on wikipedia but I was going to post what i've written this time round on here so you can review it again? I'm doing this because the article wizard said that i should do this. so here is what i've done this time round. I am a real amateur when it comes to html and it looks a bit messy in terms of alignment and stuff so if you are able to sort that out for me it would be much appreciated! If not thanks for reviewing the article anyway! --Jackrecords (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jackrecords: I'll leave you a note on your talk page. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 09:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your help, it's much appreciated. How do i take the page from a draft to going published properly? --Jackrecords (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redvers/Archive41&oldid=1141985309"