User talk:Phil Simister

Reply

I'm sorry but you have misunderstood my original question. I have not been having any issues with the text. This is a further rewrite of a rewrite I did five years ago. Instead all the photos I try to load to the site will not load. I cannot understand why.

Phil Simister (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Phil Simister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Meriden, West Midlands, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Jeff G. ツ 12:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Meriden Sandstone Monument 1879.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Meriden Sandstone Monument 1879.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of England Showing Meriden 1.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map of England Showing Meriden 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meriden, West Midlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Queen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meriden, West Midlands

Hi, sorry to be the bearer of unwelcome news, but I've placed a notice on the article "Meriden, West Midlands" as it appears to contain Original Research which other editors will be unable to verify, and have started a discussion on Talk:Meriden, West Midlands#Sources. Basically, I'm afraid that if you can't cite reliably published sources for the material, we'll have to remove all of the uncited text.

Suitable reliable secondary sources can be quality national newspapers like The Guardian, broadcasters like the BBC, history journals, or history textbooks. It is sometimes allowable to cite primary historical sources but there are strict rules on their usage. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as some weeks have gone past with neither any sources added to the article, nor any reply here or there, I've gone ahead and removed the material most in need of citation. I've also added material and citations about Meriden as the centre of England. This leaves the article stronger, i.e. with more evidence and less material needing evidence. As and when you obtain suitable sources, feel free to add citations to the material in the article (which is still in much need of support), and where appropriate add back the deleted material with suitable citations. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap

That was a little unnecessary. It has merely taken a little longer than I thought. The source of all the material is a 75 year old lady who has taken a few weeks to find all the sources you needed - working between the fact that she is still the main source of all the sources that you recommended that I quote. In fact I've not had the chance to reply to your message before now because I was away diving; but in fact sat down with her yesterday, as soon as I got back, and sorted out references. I am going through your edit, line by line, to pick up inaccuracies.

I presume that you have no issue with me recreating the original text with supporting references?

I also have to say that I wonder why you never made the effort to correct given the inaccurate and improbable information from the original entry that I first corrected five or six years ago? I understand your desire to keep Wikipedia as accurate and valid as possible but given that you let the original text go and yet have picked up my own more carefully sourced material, I am rather losing confidence that Wikipedia is worth supporting. I will await your answer concerning my recreation of the original text with copious supporting reference before actioning.

Phil Simister (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I see that you have already covered my question in your email. OK will go back and reinstate with appropriate references.

Phil Simister (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to understand the wiki help pages on using the same reference multiple times. perhaps you could indicate how it's done?

Phil Simister (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've just put in a dead link, in fact two identical copies of a dead link. I've merged them for you, so you can study how to use "the same reference multiple times" - all that is required is to name the link and then reuse the name, ending with a /, please examine the links for an example. It would also help if you filled in the ref's title, author, date, and publisher as is usual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much better, ... but the link is still dead! try it for yourself.... Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE tried it and it IS live. It was live when I accessed it just before citing it at 20:30 today (which I was still doing when you started correcting) and it is live now. I can access it through this Wikipedia page. Phil Simister (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meriden, West Midlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Elliot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centre of England

I note that the direct quote from Doreen Agutter concerning the legend that Meriden was the centre of England was removed from the site last night and replaced with a bland comment that Meriden was important to the driving trade. Please note however that the direct quote was not placed there by me as author of the site but rather was put in place by one of the editors; and it was effective in that it explained the legend exactly. With the quote and my previous sentence and citation removed there is no explanation to the legend whatsoever. I obviously have to go back and find some way to get the wording back in. Phil Simister (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three things. Firstly, whatever the source, and whoever inserted the material, articles must comply with the law, as well as with Wikipedia policy. Secondly, you are not "author of the site": the Meriden article is one small page on the Wikipedia site, and you are just one editor of that page: you will not be the last, either, and if you feel you own it as a site, it might be useful to read WP:OWN on that subject. Thirdly, there is a separate article on the "centre of England", so there is no need at all to restate that material in the Meriden article. The correct procedure is to mention the fact, once, as briefly as possible, and to wikilink the other article. There is already more than sufficient coverage of the subject in the Meriden article, where indeed Centre points of the United Kingdom is already linked, so I suggest you leave it at that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously unable to do anything about it since you have the power to change anything I write - so will desist in trying to make this an even more valuable encyclopaedia entry than it already is; but if you examine the Wikipedia article you quite, on the centre of Britain, you will find that Meriden is only mentioned very briefly, once, and that there is absolutely no explanation as to why it was considered to be the centre of England.

Now in following the lead of your fellow editor in quoting from Doreen Agutter’s work verbatim, I obviously erred; however nowhere now on Wikipedia is the tradition covered. Can I ask, how would you suggest that this is rectified? Phil Simister (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get tetchy; I have no more power than any other editor, but rules are rules. I am very glad to hear that you will not attempt any more long quotations. Feel free to mention things briefly, in your own words, citing a reliable source. Agutter is not such a source on the centre of England thing. BTW it would help if you could indent discussion threads, like this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long quotations are copyright violations

Please be aware that it is forbidden to use long quotations on Wikipedia from copyrighted material (WP:COPYVIO), for the simple reason that it is illegal under copyright law. Obviously you will be aware that you could be blocked from editing were you to continue with such behaviour contrary to policy. I appreciate that sometimes the easiest route to an explanation may seem to be a quotation, but a paraphrase is the required method, short quotations under fair usage where absolutely necessary. This is now the second day running that I have been obliged to remove a block of COPYVIO material. I do hope further action will not be necessary. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]