User talk:Telegraph Totter

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)[edit]

Hello, Telegraph Totter, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your messages on talk pages typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! DLB111U (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes[edit]

Hello. You probably aren't aware of the section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style that deals with dashes, HERE. What it says is that the dash used in a scoreline or in a range of numbers or years, like a sports season, should be the endash, which can be generated by the html entity – or selected from the Insert character box (below the edit window): it's the first, shorter, dash of the two, and isn't the same as the hyphen. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mick McManus (wrestler) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aletta Ocean[edit]

I've deleted the Mr Marcus material. My reasoning is in the edit summary and in a new section I've started on the article's talk page. Please do not re-insert the material. Instead, if you think I'm wrong (always a distinct possibility,) please discuss on the talk page thread. Please do not be hurt, insulted or turned off to wikipedia editing because of my reversion. With biographies of living people we are especially cautious and need iron-clad sources for any material that's as sensitive as this. If a consensus arises on the talk page in opposition to my deletion, the material can be re-inserted. But it definitely needs further disuccion and more consideration.

Thanks,
David in DC (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Miquel Brown may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5065332/Simon-Cowells-50th-treat-for-Sinitta-who-says-she-is-44.html}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sources[edit]

Just to underline what you have already been told; WP:BLPSOURCES is policy here, and it says we cannot use tabloids on articles on living people. You must not add tabloid sources, and you are welcome to join those of us who enforce it on articles. --John (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is plain daft. A tabloid runs a story (unacceptable) – it is then picked up a by a broadsheet and run unaccredited (acceptable). That's bonkers.--The Totter 11:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to your opinion on this, but as an administrator I am entrusted with the responsibility to enforce rules like BLP. I shall be obliged to block users who I see breaching this rule after a warning. I strongly advise you to be mindful of this in your future editing as I am sure you would not wish to be blocked. --John (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very much like a threat. So much for the opening welcome to wikipedia – be friendly. Anyway, man up and tell me what you think of my point about a broadsheet running a tabloid story...--The Totter 09:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not meant as a threat, just pointing out that although we are free to have our own opinions on things, there are some few bottom lines that are enforceable. BLP is one of them (copyvios are another example) and it's in my gift to block folk who show their disagreement by adding controversial and poorly referenced material to articles on living people. Now, to your question.

Tabloid runs a story about a living person; we absolutely can't use it.

Tabloid runs a story, proper news source reports it; we can report it in the same terms that the news source did. For example, we can't report that Freddie Starr ate a hamster, but we can report that the Sun published a story falsely claiming that he did, and then admitted the story was made up. Note that "can" is not the same as "must" here; not every scurrilous made-up story from a tabloid needs to be reported on Wikipedia, even if a real source has commented on it. That is where you go to the talk page, discuss, and try to reach a consensus. I hope this makes sense to you. --John (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said to someone else both The Guardian and The Times are tabloids. And usually what you refer to as a "proper news source" such as The Daily Telegraph will often just lift the same story and run it uncredited with the same quotes/facts. It's the epitome of snobbery to say, for example, the Daily Mail is not a "proper news source". So if a celebrity gives an interview to the Daily Mail in which she reveals his or her "secrets" it is not usable on Wikipedia? That's barking. Remind me who was it who exposed Jeffrey Archer as a liar and perjurer? Give you a clue – it was not what you call a "proper news source"...--The Totter 01:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Sinitta[edit]

Have discovered a birth certificate may not be regarded as a suitable reference as it's a primary rather than a secondary source. Coincidentally, I've had a similar issue today over whether or not a marriage certificate can be cited as a source, but there are arguments for and against it. Probably better would be if there's something else that quotes her birth date using the document. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub what I said yesterday. Looks like a birth certificate is fine. If you want to see a discussion of of whether such sources are fine or not, go here and scroll down to "Citing a marriage certificate". As it seems fine though, I'll add my support. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:David Wallechinsky.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:David Wallechinsky.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Wallace[edit]

Please observe our various policies and guidelines when editting this article.

Only the first occurance of a term is Wikilinked per section. We do not link every occurance of a persons name in a section, for example.
Do not link book titles except to an article about the specific book. In particlar, don't link partial book titles to related articles.
An infobox is a summary - everything in it must also be in the text of the article and cited to a source.
All religious and political affiliations require discussion in the article along with supporting references. This applies to both entries in the infobox and categories. We may not add categories which are not supported in the article text with citations.
The recently deceased are still covered by our WP:BLP policy for a year. In particular, this means that religious affiliations must be sourced to a statement of self-identification with the religion by the subject (see WP:BLPCAT for details). A third-party claim or assumptions based on the religion of the parents are not adequate.
Other people mentioned in the article who are living are also covered by WP:BLP; we may not call someone a "boyfriend" or make other statements about their relationship status without sources. These must be third-party sources, and not claims made by the subject.

I have been editing this article to comply with our policies, and explained each edit in my edit summaries. Please stop undoing my work to improve this article's compliance with our policies.

Thank you. Yworo (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Examiner.com is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. In fact, it has been intentionally blacklisted so that it cannot be used. You must find different sources than Examiner.com. Yworo (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your message[edit]

Thanks for your message. My reply is:

Yes, we have policies. Yes, I've been editing Wikipedia for 9 year and have made over 72,000 edits, and during that time I happened to bother to read said policies, which is more than can be said for you. Wikipedia is edited collaboratively. The policies are made the same way, and during my time here I've participated in making, modifying, and explaining policy. And it's up to every Wikipedia editor to make sure that our articles, especially those about living people and the recently deceased, adhere to those policies. It's not your site: when in Rome... Yworo (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not yours either, unless I missed something. And it's 9 years not 9 year.--The Totter 00:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Katherine Kingsley[edit]

The article Katherine Kingsley has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Gbawden (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offended. I couldn't care less. I didn't create it. I think she did – or her agent. I merely tidied it up.--The Totter 01:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at Sinitta[edit]

Please go over WP:BLPPRIMARY. Until you have a secondary reliable source that can be used to reference date of birth or any other type of personal information, it needs to stay off the article. If you have any questions, there's a discussion thread at WP:BLP/N. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC) No there isn't. --The Totter 00:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Sinitta's birth certificate.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sinitta's birth certificate.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

Despite many messages to you on your talk page, article talk pages, and in edit summaries, you continue to completely misinterpret what constitutes a reliable source. Have you read WP:RS? Or WP:BLPSOURCES? Please do so prior to adding any additional material to BLP articles. A continued and flagrant disregard of BLP policy despite the problems with your edits being explained to you will likely lead to a topic ban from BLP articles altogether. Bottom line: If material is removed from an article citing BLP concerns with the material or the sourcing, you must get consensus prior to restoring the material. You have repeatedly reverted removal of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information and you need to stop. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Helen Flanagan. Thank you. Super Mario Man 14:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our biographies of living persons policy requires us to edit such articles cautiously and conservatively. Unfortunately, your latest revert restored a personal life claim that directly contradicted the source given (which quotes her as having said "I am single at the moment"; this is corroborated by the new STV article that I have just added). Contrary to what you have stated, under-referenced, or un-referenced, claims regarding a biographical subject's personal life can – very quickly – become controversial (especially when they conflict with what a subject has said about him/herself). I am not the first user to have expressed concern about your editing of BLPs on your talk page – please follow the recommendations of Ponyo and FreeRangeFrog given above. Super Mario Man 03:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Melanie Sykes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

She was heard on [Radio 2 with [[Aled Jones]] sitting in for ''[[Steve Wright in the Afternoon]]'' on 22-24 December

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence[edit]

Please do not remove dates of birth from the opening sentence of articles, as you did at Melanie Sykes. Per WP:OPENPARA, that is where the date of birth should go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Hello Telegraph Totter. I noticed here that your signature does not contain a link back to you as required by WP:SIGLINK. Please change your signature to include at least one link to your user page, your talk page or your contributions. If you need assistance accomplishing that, please feel free to ask. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please update your signature as requested before making any further edits to talk pages. —DoRD (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't you met with DoRD's request for compliance to WP:SIGLINK? You need to do this now, please.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number[edit]

I see you have made a number of edits changing how "number" is represented. Please note that according to Wikipedia manual of style MOS:NUMBERSIGN using "No." is correct. Hzh (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Britain's Got Talent (series 7), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Davidson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content about living people[edit]

Content, particularly potentially controversial content about living people, requires the highest quality sources. The Daily Mail is so far from qualifying as a reliable source as to be laughable. Please stop attempting to use it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, DOB can very often be "controversial" , particularly when you are entering content saying that someone has lied about their age! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Ghmyrtle has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Dave Thompson (author), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
You already have warnings concerning your editing of BLPs dating back to June last year. Further unsourced edits of this type will entail a discussion at WP:ANI. Super Mario Man 03:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chris Hutchins[edit]

Hello, Telegraph Totter. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Chris Hutchins, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Chris Hutchins to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Hutchins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mr. Sheen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

polish) created in Australia in the 1950s by Samuel Taylor Pty Ltd. It was the first aerosol] cleaning product available on the Australian market and helped introduce the use of aerosol

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Cover of book Mr Confidential.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of book Mr Confidential.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

signature[edit]

Please fix your signature per WP:SIGLINK. This has been requested before in this thread above. People need that link to your talkpage to communicate with you and if you don't do it you may be blocked until you do. Thank you,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Telegraph Totter. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
Message added 11:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for clearly not being here to contribute to building the encyclopedia and having a battleground mentality. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]