Hey Emeraude, hope you're okay :)

I am fairly sure - pretty sure - I have Pending Changes acceptance rights, but when I tried to accept a recent change on Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election (one you accepted), it did not give me the ability to accept. Am I missing something obvious or is there a button I have misplaced? Thanks! doktorb _words^deeds 20:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but you didn't have the "reviewer right", which means you couldn't accept pending changes. I've changed that so you shouldn't have a problem with your edits needing to be accepted now. To see what rights you have you can use this link. Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Nev1. I was told by another editor (some months ago now, I forget the name), that reviewer rights had been granted (think I experimented with an article on a WWE wrestling thing or something I've never been interested in!). Thanks very much for your help, I'll give it a go. doktorb _words^deeds 08:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved I guess.Emeraude (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - a truly unexpected honour. Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude. Sorry to be a newbie, but I can't find any guide on how to respond to message boxes which appear on a Wikipedia page. The last time I dealt with one, there was a talk page link in the box! In the hope that this is the right way to communicate about the edit, could you advise me what to do next? You added two boxes to the I.A.Recordings page on 11 January 2011: "This article needs additional citations for verification" and "This section does not cite any references or sources". The first was followed by two "Citation needed" tags, which I have replaced with references. The second referred to a complete section and I have added 4 references to that. What happens next? Do you review my changes and remove the boxes if you think the problem is resolved, or is there some other procedure? I have looked all over Wikipedia help and then Googled, but can't find an answer to this! John Logie (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there's no review. An editor tags that an article needs referenecs because, quite simply, it needs references. There is no obligation on him/her to check back later. It's open for any other editor to provide those referenecs - as you have done - and if you think that they satisfy the normal Wikipedia criteria then you may remove the tags yourself. (If other editors check your refs and find they're not satisfactory, the tags will reappear of course.) Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ta! John Logie (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republicanism in the United Kingdom|British republicanism"

"Reverting utter nonsense"

Hilarious! Sorry, I just wanted to say you made me chuckle with that revert. Thanks. The things people will write on that page are beyond belief haha! Alexandre8 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But did he/she really believe it? It's terrifying to imagine so. Emeraude (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea! I guess it doesn't matter. Republicanism? Like, I can understand jokes likes "socialism" or "nazism" or whatever, but where the hell did republicanism come from :P!!!? Hilarious. I guess he was joking or just really really bad at school? Alexandre8 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus were you referring to? Alphasinus (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That relating to ideology of UKIP, as noted in the infobox and the introductory paragraph. There has been a long discussion in this page about UKIP's political position, or at least, about how it should be described. The general consensus from that discussion had been that UKIP is populist, Eurosceptic, Conservative and/or National conservative (whatever that is - just because it's held by consensus doesn't mean I agree with it) and has elements of classical liberalism and libertarianism but is not, in the main, a classical liberal or libertarian party. If you think this is wrong the correct way to go about things is to discuss first in UKIP's talk page, preferably after having read the archived discussions on the same topic to avoid going over old ground, and to present your argument with appropriate sourced evidence on the talk page. Emeraude (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an image (or text) is publicly available via a press release, for example, does not automatically mean that it has been released into the public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are having problems with I Attempt From Loves Sickness. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron, becuase I Attempt From Loves Sickness is another of his sockpuppets. Marquis was banned from Wikipedia editing for six months (from early December, therefore a ban that is still in place) for exactly the sort of thing that he/she is doing right now. With any luck the latest account will be blocked shortly. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very intersting. Thanks for that. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you can provide the soucre so i can read and varify it then thats all were asking for. The quotes you have made on the discussion page are very detailed, you must have read the article recently to get them? yet it is a broken link, thnkas 94.192.142.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well done on improving the Tokheim article - it looks much better. Vrenator ^talk 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Amazing that the inventor of the petrol pump was totally absent from Wikipedia!! It's a shame I'm not an expert on business/finance though. Hopefully, someone with more experience in the field will take over, but I think I'm about done now. Emeraude (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the word 'bassist'? Just curious - it's a very widely used term, and 'bass guitarist' seems unnecessarily old-fashioned to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I partly agree with you, and partly disagree. I agree about "sophomore" - a very annoying word - but I think the word "bassist" is perfectly acceptable in articles about rock groups. It's unlikely to be misleading or confusing in that context (how many rock groups have tubas?!), and clearly language moves on. But, I certainly won't make an issue of it. As for posts that are inconsistent in spelling "encyclopaedia" and "encyclopedic", however.......  !! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning Scotland should contain only those acts which apply only to Scotland, same with the other two categories which should only contain categories to acts which only apply to England and Wales, and only to Northern Ireland. (English laws should be subcategorised to Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning England or Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning England and Wales where it applies). Tim! (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude, hope you're doing well. I noticed your new article on the above castle and one thing really stood out to me: the use of white marble as a building material. I don't know a great deal about building materials, but I can't think of a single castle in the UK that uses marble in this manner. When I think of marble building the Parthenon that springs to mind than medieval castles, so I was wondering if you know how common the use of marble was in French castles? Nev1 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue, and it does seem strange. The source was the most reliable, French Ministry of Culture (linked in the article), which states "Murs construits en marbre blanc." (Walls constructed in white marble.) I presume the marble was available locally and would not have been polished. Emeraude (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has tempted me to look up marble in Wikipedia, which says that "More generally in construction.... the term "marble" is used for any crystalline calcitic rock (and some non-calcitic rocks) useful as building stone." Whether that also applies in France I don't know. Emeraude (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article piqued my interest because I can't think of another example, though limestone is fairly common. Your suggestion that it was simply a local stone makes a great deal of sense. As for what constitutes marble, that's something that goes way over my head. Nev1 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Ministry would have got it wrong. Elsewhere, it does decribe castles etc built of limestone (calcaire). Marble is metamorphosed limestone, but I imagine that there must be various grades depending on the extent of the metamorphosis, which is certainly what the Wikipedia article says. Unfortunately, it is some decades since I studied geology! Emeraude (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article Commodores 13 included some confused writing which didn't make sense. I've cleaned up the language a bit. Looking through the history, I see that you made the changes which caused the confusion. Looking through this talk page, it seems that you're an experienced editor who writes clearly. Hence I don't know what happened with the Commodores 13 page. I'll put this note here so that you're aware of my changes and can discuss them in the usual places Ross-c (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Abdelkweli (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forget the arrogance in your reply to my section over my grammar, I have dyslexia. First, what policies of UKIP would appeal to the Far-Right BNP. Second, UKIP was founded by former Conservative Party MP's, members, etc, so UKIP has not stolen policies of the Conservative Party, but was founded by pre-existing Conservative politicians, who just found the Conservative Party was far too Pro-EU and Liberal, so to enhance Conservatism they established UKIP. Third, I can't think of any element of UKIP's Manifesto which does not consist of Conservatism. Please all I would like is for Conservatism to be added to the article of UKIP. (E.Davies100 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think you had better forget the arrogance in my reply over your grammar, dyslexia or not, seeing as I made no comment at all on your grammar. Please read my comment again, and when you understand it - the crucial point is the difference between Conservatism (i.e. the Tory party) and conservatism (i.e. the political philosphy) - perhaps then you would like to join in discussing the issues. Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: E.Davies100 turns out to be a sock puppet and is now banned. Emeraude (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your posts to my talk page. I have answered there. I too have repeatedly been automatically logged out, and I have found it just as frustrating as you no doubt have. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here, funny how there's so little mention of it in the national press isn't it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the bit where he says "Most of the people who belong to the BNP are people like myself." Does he mean they are "charged with possession of a weapon, making a bomb hoax, false imprisonment and endangering life"? Emeraude (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there have been a fair few of them over the years..... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you have the latest (May) issue, that's assuming you read it (I don't)? Just need a quick clarification if you do. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. I read it ocassionally, or consult online, but only extracts appear there. Emeraude (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll wait for excerpts to appear on the website. Thanks anyway. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your confusion here, "self-titled" means "named after the artist". The artist is Lonestar, the album is also Lonestar, so it's self-titled. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. There's no confusion, and it's not just with Lonestar. "Self-titled", in that sense, is a ridiculous construction much beloved of music writers who lack either a decent grasp of writing skills in the English language or simply slavishly follow fashionable phrases without thinking about what they mean. It's laziness. And it's technically wrong: the band's manager could have given the album the name, or the record company, or it could have been voted on by fans, so the fact of the band and the album having the same name is not the same as self-titled. "Eponymous" would be better in terms of accuracy, but is rather pretentious. In either case, it looks ridiculous as a blue link. If the album has a name (which of, course, it has) then why not use it? This is, after all, an encyclopaedia and the style of writing should reflect that and not the worst scribblings of the music press. Emeraude (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you recategorize as Category:Châteaux in Lot (department). Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not. There is a dinstinct difference in meaning in English between "castle" and "château". This all goes back a few years when for reasons I never did understand, the decision was made to scrap the category Castles in France, so that every castle was then recategorised under "Châteaux in France", a total nonsense in the English speaking world. My objections brought about the compromise of a category "Fortifed Châteaux in France" which is even more ridiculous. Now if you would like to organise the revival of the more sensible category "Castles in France" (restricted to proper castles) I would be delighted to support you. Sub-categories could include, where there are sufficient numbers, "Castles in Lot", "Castles in Aveyron", "Castles in Gironde" etc. But I think it is vital to maintain the difference between a castle and what in English is called a château (i.e, a stately home, mansion, palace etc.). After all, this principle applies to every other country and region.

Incidentally, I will over the next few hours be expanding the Lot castle articles that I created today. Interestingly, none of them has coverage in the French Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was a complete mess. Yeah I agree Category:Castles in France makes much more sense, what I wanted was to have categories for each department and transwiki them all. Go ahead and recategorize those actual castles as such. If anybody objects I'll support you adamently and I'm sure a few others will too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will try. Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we discussed the castle/château issue in 2008. I have now created Category:Castles in France as well as sub-categories for regions such as Category:Castles in Alsace. I have not made categories for Departments: it seemed to me that whereas Cat:Castles in France would be unmanageably large without subcategories, there would be far too many subs if there was one for each department. However, if you think that would be useful you should find it easier now that the regional cats are in place.

I have begun to edit castles articles from List of castles in France to either add a Castles in... category or to replace a Chateaux in.... category if the article is clearly about a castle. There will be a number of articles where the subject is a castle that has become a château and these will need both types of category. So far I have completed Alsace and made a start on Aquitaine.

I hope this goes some way to meet your initial request. Emeraude (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the edit work done on Chateau de la Motte. You did much needed work. I had looked at the writing so often I couldn't see what needed doing. It is such a small unimportant chateau I feared no one would ever improve it. You were generous to notice it.

I was glad to see the other work you've done on other chateaux in France, and I look forward to reading more of them as to what is known. My own research turned up so much from the 1600's and afterward, but the medieval period seemed so sparse in such a traumatic time. Thanks again. Mlane (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks as if you have "undone the redirect" at Pas très catholique by cutting and pasting contents rather than requesting a move (requesting would be necessary because the redirect was edited after the previous move). I will restore the contents, as otherwise the article history is split between two pages. You are welcome to request the move, I agree that with IMDb using the French title that would seem reasonable. --Mirokado (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure I fully understand the technicalites, but I'm glad you agree with my point that the film, as far as I can discover, is only known by its French name. Emeraude (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to reflect the French name. Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page for general information about doing so. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves for information about making the request. --Mirokado (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Moving a page says "Pages may be moved to a new title if the previous name is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or for a host of different housekeeping reasons such as that it is not the common name of the topic...." (my italics) which seems to cover this issue, so why bother with requesting a move. Anyway, I'm going away now for about seven weeks, so I can't deal with this now. Emeraude (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal mortals cannot move a page if the new name already exists (in this case as the already-edited redirect). I will look in a bit more detail and, if I see no problem with it, make the request, but not tonight! --Mirokado (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Something Fishy (film)#Requested move. --Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos has been renominated by the same nominator 11 days after it closed as "no consensus". I'm contacting everyone who participated in the last AFD, who hasn't found their way there already. Dream Focus 21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! {{Wikify}} has recently been deprecated in favor of more specific tags, which are listed at Template:Wikify#See_also. When tagging an article that needs more links, for instance, please use {{underlinked}}. Thanks! Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recent edit to this article. 'Music for Pleasure "were" a New Wave band', in the same way that 'R.E.M. "was" an American rock band' (this is a difference in British English/American English). Also corrected your spelling "Keyboard layert". memphisto 18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, "The London Symphony Orchestra are an organisation that play music"? It's not British/American. It's more a case of if the reference is to the individuals who form the organisation, or the organisation itself. So, for example, "Man Utd is a football club" but "After several injuries, Spurs are likely to lose today". Whatever. The standard of writing in most music articles is totally lousy anyway. Thanks for the typo correction. Emeraude (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug up an article that explains this convention: Comparison of American and British English#Grammar memphisto 09:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but full of its own contradictions. However, it does repeat what I said above: "In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular ... or plural ... verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual." Since when was Elvis Costello held up as a paragon of English grammar usage? Does that article really imply that only Americans use "The United States is...." and are the reasons given of any genuine signicance or total bollocks? Emeraude (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just come across this: "Pluto was a Canadian alternative rock band from in Vancouver, British Columbia. They were nominated for a Juno....". I suppose Canadian falls somewhere between British and American!! (lol) Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this edit you made, what made you think the source was unreliable. It is regarded as a reliable source. If you have queries about whether particular football sites are reliable please ask at WT:FOOTY. If you think you might've tagged this source at other articles can you make the changes? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tag says "unreliable source?" - note the question mark. There is nothing on the website to indicate it is reliable. Why should it be? If you judge it is, you are free to remove the tag, as you did. Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you created the article Château de Hohenbourg in 2007, and someone recently noticed that it is almost identical to the French text at the Ministry of Culture database. Based on the evidence, I believe it is possible that the Ministry of Culture actually generated this text by translating your article without giving you credit, rather than the other way around. Can you confirm whether this is the case? Or did you actually translate from the Ministry of Culture database entry? Or is there some other connection we're unaware of? Thank you for your help! Dcoetzee 15:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examine the evidence more closely. You wil see that the article clearly cites the French Ministry of Culture as a source. Emeraude (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, under Wikipedia rules ("Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will"), no one has to give me (I'm a pseudonym anyway) any credit - I have agreed to my work being in the public domain - but they ought to at least acknowledge Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the article cites the French Ministry of Culture as a source. What I'm trying to determine is whether the article was translated directly from [3], word-for-word, or whether it is your own original writing, and the French Ministry of Culture translated your article into French at a later time. Please clearly indicate which of these scenarios occurred.

You're also mistaken regarding how licensing works on Wikipedia - by default, your contributions are released under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL, and it is required to attribute you by your pseudonym to use it (or by a link to the Wikipedia article, which includes your pseudonym in the history). If you truly wish to release all your contributions into the public domain, I encourage you to edit your user page to indicate: "I release all rights to all my contributions under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 waiver", which will have this effect. Dcoetzee 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How could I possibly cite the French Ministry of Culture as a source if their writing did not appear until after they had translated mine???? If you look at the article as originally published on 21 March 2007, you will see at the bottom "Source - French Ministry of Culture database, accessed 21 March 2007". (But don't follow the link - it will go to a diferent monument because the system for numbering has since changed. The links as they appear on the article now are up-to-date.) So, therefore, their work predates mine. Emeraude (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Château de Hohenbourg

Update

Thank you. I have replaced the copyright problem with the translated version. Please be sure when translating from other languages to record a link to the original page in your edit summary. You can read more at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and particularly the section Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects. The tag you placed on the face of the page is intended to help readers locate sources, but not to satisfy attribution requirements. Since content is dually licensed, an accurate record is required in "history" for that.

Can you tell me if you have created other articles the way you created this one, by translating from other sources than Wikipedia? If so, we may need to remove or replace them, unless they are compatibly licensed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was one that slipped through accidentally. I have usually created articles by translation/adaptation from corresponding French Wikipedia articles and bringing over cited sources where appropriate or adding sources (such as Michelin guides, municipal websites, official websites, historical books etc) where none were given. The French Ministry of Culture site is widely used in both langauage Wikis as a reliable source. I think what happened in this case is that I translated the MofC details for a batch of topics, took a break and then just slammed it in without any other work. To be honest, it was a long time ago. Generally speaking, my translation skills are not sufficient to produce a "certified copy" but simply a gist of the meaning of the original. It will take some time, but I will go back over some others to check. Emeraude (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Emeraude. Please note that "electoral failure" is not neutral language, and therefore fails WP:NPOV and our policy on weasel words. If you were being fair, you'd have to call perennial failure Winston McKenzie the same, which I suspect you're not willing to do. Let's keep things as they are, Wikipedia is not a campaign website doktorb _words^deeds 21:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Guilty. I was just reverting an edit by an apparent NF supporter who elsewhere had removed "right wing" from a description of Edmonds. Deleted my edit and the whole sentence (his most recent campaign/failure is hardly relevant to the article). Emeraude (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Calvin999. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Homeless (song) because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! AARON• ^TALK 13:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate receiving accusations like this. Please withdraw your accusation. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. You reverted a series of edits on the grounds that they were "contraversial, that is a 'comment' blog and not sufficent for such a claim". Firstly, it was not particularly controversial; the source is a good one, but not for the claim made for it. Secondly it was not a "comment blog" as you stated. Thirdly, you have persisted in referring to a "telegraph comment page" when it has been clearly pointed out to you it's a blog. To me, that's twisting reality. I could also describe it as being deliberately misleading. If you don't appreciate it, stop twisting reality. Emeraude (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you a second chance to withdraw your personal attack. Accusing me of being deliberately misleading for treating the guardians comment pages the same as the telegraphs is unacceptable GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing to do with, as you say, "treating the guardians comment pages the same as the telegraphs" (and again you persist in misrepresenting the nature of these sources which is the whole point I have made) - I agree wholeheartedly that for the uses to which they have been put they are inappropriate.

Read what I wrote. "I could also describe it as being deliberately misleading" is not an accusation. What you did is misleading; you ought to know it is misleading. Therefore, I could describe it as deliberate, since I cannot see it is accidental. Incidentally, I have not made a personal attack on you; I drew attention to what you wrote and are still writing, even now, not to you. That is not personal. So, there is nothing to withdraw. Now stop threatening me. Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another editor of being deliberately misleading is a personal attack, regardless of whether you add a caveat of 'I could describe it as' GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. And it was misleading.

This correspondence is now at an end. Emeraude (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made comments on the talk page that I would kindly ask you to read before getting in to an edit war. I am happy to discuss with you but really there is no place for media gossip in the policy sections. It has been suggested by other editors such as User:Blue Green Square that it might be an idea to set up a section abut "UKIP in the media" about various things that are said about them. What you quoted did not relate to what the Guardian was arguing. Farage said nothing about directly going after Tory voters! All the other uotes in that section clarify the party's political positions and the party's policies. With the greatest of respect the quote you used was neither use nor Ornament. Bottom Line is that it's a policy section, so let's keep it to policy, no analysis, no speculation etc. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Contented sigh.) Your edit comment, (and your edt), bring hope to the heart of a grumpy old man who has begun to despair regarding the future of wikipedia. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From another grumpy old man, you're very welcome. Another thing that annoys me is "self-titled" as in "Fred Bloggs, the self-titled album by Fred Bloggs...". Presumably all other albums are titled by a machine totally unconnected with the performers! Emeraude (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! (Particularly given that "Fred" probably had NO say in the matter anyway ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred might not have been his real name though. So, strictly speaking, he may not have been eponymous. Emeraude (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Yes, you have a point. So if it truly was eponymous, it would have been called "Reg Dwight". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article Airport Weeze, here you can read the background story of the renaming. It's only a marketing phrase of Ryanair and not the official name, and over 70km far away from Düsseldorf. I think, Wikipedia shouldn't be the advertising platform for any company. I hope you we can accept the arguments... Kindest regards, --Pitlane02 talk 11:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]