Thank you - a truly unexpected honour. Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 7 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

Of course, an airport name and how it's marketed by itself, the airlines and other airports is likely to vary. Beziers-Cap d'Agde en Languedoc is how it's marketed - its official name is Beziers-Vias; just as Weeze's official name is Flughafen Niederrhein. Same applies to just about every other airport in the world. The same applies to London. There are eight airports which call themseleves "London" : London Heathrow, London City, London Gatwick, London Stansted, London Luton (which was also renamed just a few years ago), London Southend, London Ashford (which is really Lydd), London Biggin Hill. Only the first two are actually in London. Düsseldorf Weeze is how everybody without local or specialist knowledge refers to it. It is the way it is marketed by Ryanair (and by all the other airports which serve it, including Beziers) so that seems the logical name to use. The Weeze airport article does a good job of correcting it. I'd bet that no one in Beziers has ever heard of Weeze, other than attached to Düsseldorf by Ryanair et al. Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in Germany have ever heard of Weeze too. ;-) BTW: The next bigger towns are Nijmegen (56km), Duisburg (59km), Arnhem (62km), Oberhausen (64km), Essen (79 km), and than Düsseldorf (80km). Even the next big and international airport Cologne Bonn Airport is only 56km far away from Düsseldorf, so it's easier to understand the decision of the court. And something is different to the London airports, nowhere the Airport Weeze names himself as Düsseldorf-Weeze. (As I know that my English is in need of improvement - to say the least - I am grateful for any feedback indeed.) regards --Pitlane02 talk 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is understandable. But everyone else cals it Düsseldorf-Weeze and the airport wanted to originally. I know from visiting Beziers Airport that most of the passengers on the flights from Düsseldorf/Weeze are Dutch though, and not German. Emeraude (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see that you often tag articles with unreferenced or BLP unreferenced, such as this one. Please only use the unreferenced tag for articles with no references at all, and use tags like {{BLP sources}} and {{No footnotes}} for articles that have a reference, which is listed under external links. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er.... but there are no references or notes on that page, not one. External links are NOT references. Emeraude (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the template {{inline}} or {{Refimprove}} are for. To differentiate between no sources and articles with just external links GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True up to a point, and I often use the {{inline}} tag. Unfortunately, its wording - "This article includes a list of references..." - is nonsense in cases when there are no references. External links, whose reliablity is not guaranteed, are no substitution for verifiable references. Similarly with {{Refimprove}},

Some external links are not references, such as links to home pages of associated companies, sporting teams or universities. But external links to specific pages that verify the content of the pages, such as sporting stats databases, or other links that inexperienced editors stick in the wrong spot, are references. To claim otherwise is being overly pedantic and against the whole reason why we want references in articles - to satisfy WP:V. And you forgot to read past the first comma in {{inline}} - the rest of the sentence says This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links and note there is an OR in the sentence, not an AND. The-Pope (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't forget to read past the first comma at all. What a silly thing to say. I didn't quote beyond the first comma, because I was under the impression, from your original posting here, that you were talking about references! Emeraude (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reference is defined by the content of the reference/link, not by it's formatting, location in an article or the label on the subsection it is in. The unreferenced tags should only be used when there is nothing in the article that directs users to an external source which can verify the content, whether it is a properly formatted inline citation or just dumped at the end in an external links section. If you are questioning the reliabilty of the links, then there are specific tags for that too. But it is still a reference.The-Pope (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you and started a discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for message. Responded there. Emeraude (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If I well understand your message, we have to create a category:Castles in Vaucluse? Just for your information, we doesn't have Châteaux fort in Vaucluse! Most of them dated on XVI century. Marianne Casamance (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Château de Lourmarin is not a "French palace" too, as Chateau de Lacoste!Marianne Casamance (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this article was not unreferenced, there is an external link already present which confirms some of what is said in the article. I have re-tagged appropriately. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me. I missed the facts that he was born on a certain date in Glasgow and scored 44 goals in 106 matches for Clyde were in the external link, but they're the only details in the text of the article that are! And how reliable is that source anyway? Emeraude (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:81.149.185.174.2C_213.120.148.60_and_others regarding the IP editor making a number of UKIP-related posts. I thought you'd like to know as your name has come up in the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on updating the airports. One thing you might be interested in. The infobox will automatically convert metres to feet (and the other way round). So now as I update the airports I usually do this. Save time in figuring out the conversions for lengths and heights. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you kindly to assume good faith with regard to looking at this section and not to disregard reliable sources in the way that you have. Secondary sources were clearly stated as such, so there was no need to to respond so dismissively. many Thanks 130.88.114.38 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of good faith. I have questioned no editor's good faith at any point. I have pointed out that the sources (in reality, all the same source) are not reliable for what is claimed of them. Emeraude (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! I'm happy to help out a fellow editor. Cheers! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably have the impression that I am not your biggest fan and have a problem with your manner. However that does not mean that I think you deserve to be treated the way you have by various IPs :-) I think you've brought the problem on yourself but I don't think its in any way justifiable for people(a person) to treat anyone like this. Why don't you just block all the University IPs permanently instead, you clearly know what the range is. Really if someone is using a shared or public computer they have no right to use the IP for edits. If people want to make edits from a public computer they should just get an account. I don't have an account because I'm using my own home broadband which I only I have access to, that is my right, it can only be me who has ever edited under this IP. Seems it would be so much easier to block that University's public computers, do that and your problem goes away and it prevents further incidence in the future. Seems like the only practical and easy full proof solution. Regards 94.9.107.169 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emeraude.

I have put some justifications for the changes I have made to the UKIP page on the talk page (the ones you keep reverting). You might like to read it.

Atshal (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at this report on your role in the edit war at UK Independence Party, or you risk being blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To save some time- can you give me a link to the wiki-linking policy on overlinking. I tend to view links inthe lead and links in the info-box as being entirely separate from those in the main article- ie below the TOC, which makes reading easier on a Smart phone- something I have missed obviously. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." The key is whether or not it is helpful to readers, which must be a subjective call. In a comparatively short article, which this is, it's usually not necessary to repeat a link. Emeraude (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do these changes address your {{advert}} concerns? --Lexein (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To a large extent, yes. Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new article has been written deleting copyright-infringing material. Information has been summarized from sources without plagiarism. Please use new edition Talk:Serio (rapper)/Temp in place of previous version. The following url http://www.mtv.com/artists/serio/biography is now in compliance with the Duplication Detector. Matches now found on the Duplication Detector are primarily proper nouns and articles (parts of speech). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.121.177 (Paul) 18:16, 28 May 2013

I just thought it was common knowledge how both groups of demostrators get arrested or beaten up. There's a few examples on UAF's article and a BBC example from the weekend. Also check the Huffington Post on their trip to Aarhus in Denmark together http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23394934 Indiasummer95 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Common knowledge" is not the basis for writing an encyclopaedia. The article is about the EDL, not UAF or other groups, so we must concentrate on that there. I think you might find in reliable sources on EDL demonstrations that arrests of counter demonstrators are minimal (try a full Google news search on last weekend's EDL demo in Birmingham, for example); the BBC report you cite is very unclear about the identities of those arrested, charged or injured and certainly not sufficient to justify the edit you made; a more detailed report, probably because they actually had a reproter there, is in the Birmingham Mail. Of course, what I have just written is also not encyclopaedic, but this isn't article space.

I agree. Look at the non-violent peace-loving UAF's campaign of love and law and order against the BNP http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-01/58-anti-fascist-protesters-arrested-from-uaf-group/

Why should I? Your carefully chosen adjectives reflect your POV, even now. But, instead of rehashing the story about 58 being arrested (not for violence, assault, threatening behaviour, but for being in the wrong place) you ought to consider that not one of the 58 has actually been charged with any offence! Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to revert you as the sources I've found, including Reuters, show the UAF as one of the groups, not the leader (except for that local paper). But your edit summary seems to agree with me, so were you reverting me or the previous editor? If you really think the sources back UAF lead you need to justify that at RSN. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was in error. Edit in haste, repent in embrrassment.

As you say, UAF was one of the groups, but there is no evidence that those who were arrested were part of UAF. Probably, not, since UAF's tactic was to remain at the Altab Ali park. There is a report on the Internet from another group claiming that they led the breakaway that specifically damns UAF for staying put! (I'll find it later)^*. What is also a problem is that the sources seem to be simply repeating a police statement from early on in the evening, saying 150 were arrested. In fact, something like 300, or slightly under, were kettled in two groups and then subjected to blanket arrest under s12 of the Public Order Act. In the first batch, the police even arrested the independent legal observers! (The Independent mentions this.) It would seem that the newspapers' (or agency) figures relate only to this first group. Section 12, to put it simply, deals with "knowingly" being somewhere the police have said you shouldn't. From what I have heard, there is no way that any of those arrested could have "knowingly" broken the law and this looks like potentially being the biggest group civil action for wrongful arrest ever brought against the Metropolitan Police. Emeraude (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^'*"Mass arrests of anti-fascists in East London", Workers Liberty

Actually, WP:OPENPARA does say not to have the place of birth in the opening brackets. Exact quote - "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability; they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets." Secondly, the information is unreferenced and therefore violates WP:BLP and WP:V. GiantSnowman 16:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:OPENPARA is a guideline so it's okay to deviate from it. Your use of "violates" is a bit strong. The correct way to deal with unreferenced material, unless it's particularly contentious, is to either correct it, find the references or request citations (as you have done twice in the following paragraph!). Giving Northampton as a birth place is not particularly contentious. As to his family, happy to see those details go - of no relevance whatsoever. Emeraude (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this as a compromose then? GiantSnowman 16:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If I get a bit of time, I'll take a look for references, but I'm not hopeful.Emeraude (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just needed to let you know that, while I reverted your edit, I did go back and reinstate those aspects of your edits that were valid. I know I sound pompous here, so we can always discuss the edits on the Talk page, as I am not, of course, the arbiter of this page.--Soulparadox (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation issues fixed. Thanks for highlighting them Weglinde (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I notice here that you put a POV tag in the article. It suggests there is info on the talk page, but the talk page doesn't have this info. Are you interested in adding an explanation to the talk page?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]