User talk:Wjfox2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Wjfox2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tower42 skyline
Hi Wjfox,
Just thought I would congratulate you on your photo Image:Tower42skyline.jpg. I've tried taking this picture from Westminster Bridge(?) myself on two or three occaisions, but everytime I've decided that the result was too murky with poor atmospheric visibility. This one looks nice and clean. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)
- Ahh sorry. I've just realised that perhaps you didn't take this photograph. In any case, this picture needs an appropriate Image copyright tag on its image description page. and possibly source information, as do the other images you've uploaded. Drop me a note on my talk page, if you need any help with this. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 13:18 (UTC)
- This also applies for your other images. Yesterday I wanted to copy this photography to Wikimedia Commons (because we wanted to use it in de:), but unfortunately the copyright information was missing, so we could not use it. Maybe you load your images to commons direcly next time, that would be nice of you. Greetings from Germany. --Stefan ■ 22:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:Londonbridgetower.jpg
 |
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Londonbridgetower.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 05:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:Londonskyline2012.jpg
|
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Londonskyline2012.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 07:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:51_Lime_Street.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:51_Lime_Street.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 08:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Placement of pictures
Please do not add pictures to any category which is not specifically for images. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery and a picture on its own is not an article. Better still, please consider only adding images to Wikimedia Commons which is a photo gallery. Merchbow 00:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Brompton_Oratory.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Brompton_Oratory.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:Tower42skyline.jpg
 |
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Tower42skyline.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rossrs 15:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] London is "very cosmopolitan"
Please explain to me why you keep inserting "very" into the London article. The claim that London is "very cosmopolitan" is hard to justify since there is no objective way to measure "cosmopolitan-ness", so how can we say that London is "very" cosmopolitan, while other cities (presumably) are merely cosmopolitan. Your addition makes the article less neutral. I should also let you know that Wikipedia has a policy against making more than three reverts every 24 hours. Please do not put this edit back into the London article. Thanks, Gwernol 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh for pity's sake. It should be blindingly obvious that London is "very" cosmopolitan - just as New York is "very" dense and highrise, Tokyo is "very" futuristic, Paris is "very" beautiful, etc. You don't have to conduct some kind of test or study to come to this conclusion. Just take a stroll around the West End and you'll see the overwhelming multitude of different peoples and cultures flowing from literally every corner of the globe. Look at the countless different neighbourhoods around the city, occupied by French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek, African, Australian, Chinese, Russian, American, Arab, etc. etc... All of these people manage to live together in harmony. More languages are spoken in London than any other city in the world. I think you're being incredibly anal. Wjfox2005 19:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Skyscrapercity.com
Hey, I recognised the username and I thought you maybe the mod off Skyscrapercity.com? --Erebus555 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's me! :-D Wjfox2005 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well welcome and dont be put off by all your images being deleted! It's safer just to add your own. - Erebus555 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What's going on?! I havent been able to get on to the forums for days now! I'm desperate to become the winner of "Who will post last?" - Erebus555 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] London financial
London is indisputably the greatest financial center in Europe, so I reverted your recent change; please justify in discussion on London page if you wish to make such a change. MarkThomas 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but leave out any mention of Paris and New York...... *please*. This shouldn't turn into some kind of "City vs City" competition. Wjfox2005 23:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those points seem a bit unrelated and I would agree if I could see where you mean; in what sense is it running a businesscompetition? I see references to other world cities, but as London assuredly is one of the principal world cities, these seems reasonable? MarkThomas 22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The no.1 rule with Wikipedia is that everything is meant to be neutral. By mentioning Paris and New York, and saying London is "the greatest", etc. you're making it sound biased and skewed by your opinion. It's COMPLETELY unnecessary to mention other cities in the opening few paragraphs. Believe me, I'm a huge fan of London and I agree with you that it's the greatest - but you have to adhere to certain rules with Wikipedia. Also, I noticed that Heathrow was given as the busiest airport. This is plain wrong. Atlanta in the USA receives more traffic. London is only the busiest city if you include all 5 of the airports within its metropolitan area. Wjfox2005 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are letting your own biases creep in here. Heathrow is widely acknowledged to be the worlds busiest _international_ airport; true that US airports handle more traffic but mostly local. You also keep removing the financial centre information which is clearly true. My opinion is this is just vandalism on your part. MarkThomas 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, for international air travel then fair enough. But coming back to the financial information - why do you need to state that it's the biggest in EUROPE, when it already says it's an "international leader in finance" and provides a direct citation showing it's #1 in the WORLD? Surely you can see it's completely superfluous! Wjfox2005 11:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, and I've attempted to wikify the opening para - see what you think? :-) MarkThomas 10:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have attempted to be very reasonable with you, but you persist in vandalising the London page on spurious grounds and swearing / making offensive remarks on pages. Any future edits to the London page you make will be immediately reverted and reported as vandalism. You have been warned. MarkThomas 17:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Next step is to report you. Please confirm this by vandalising London again if you want that to happen! MarkThomas 17:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, okay. Listen mate. Firstly, I apologise sincerely for my swearing and insulting on your talkpage. Believe me, I'm no troll, I don't deserve to be banned. In fact, I'm actually a moderator for another site, and I don't normally resort to such language... but I feel very strongly about London and in particular its position with regards to finance. I've been a contributor to the article for some time. It seemed that everyone had managed to agree on the opening few paragraphs and they hadn't really changed for several months. You then came along and proposed a couple of changes which I really, really didn't agree with, and which seemed very wrong.
Following your explanation, I'm fine with Heathrow being called the world's busiest airport, as you've explained this refers to international travel rather than local flights. I also don't mind a few more tourist attractions being added to the final paragraph either.
What I still strongly disagree with, however - and surely you will understand why - is the description of London as "the largest financial centre in Europe". Whilst this is of course true, it clearly doesn't go far enough! There are 7 continents on this planet. London is more than just the largest financial centre in one continent. It is rivalled only by New York in terms of global financial power... in fact the 2 cities have been described as the only genuinely global financial centres and this position is unlikely to change in the near future.
I could provide several more facts, for example the London foreign currency exchange is the largest in the world, with an average daily turnover more than New York and Tokyo combined. More than half (56 per cent) of the global foreign equity market is traded in London. There are also twice as many international banks in London as there are in New York. London is the biggest market in the world for derivatives traded over-the-counter, with 36 per cent of global turnover. In terms of hedge funds, London is the main centre. For metals, the IME in London is the main centre, and the price of gold is 'fixed' in London every day. For bond trading and international bank lending, London is the main centre (for example, when New York needed bonds for its subway, it turned to Deutsche Bank's office in London for the work). London also has the biggest insurance market (for example, the WTC twin towers were insured through Lloyds of London). Another point to note is that salaries in the City of London are now beginning to surpass those in Manhattan.
New York obviously has a greater role as a business centre and an economic power, but if we're talking specifically about the realm of financial services then London is arguably the leader and in terms of rivals there are certainly no other cities apart from New York which can match its power. In recent years London has further increased its lead over the likes of Tokyo, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. by just about every conceivable measure.
So please, surely you can see, it makes sense to revert the article back to how it was before. All I'm asking is that you change that one sentence - i.e. "an important settlement for around two millenia, London is now an international leader in finance".
Wjfox2005 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, apology totally accepted. Interesting comments you make - I do agree there is contention that London / New York vie for "lead financial center of the planet", but I would hesitate to say outright that London is the world's leading financial centre. First off I think there would be so many disagreements and as your own comments above suggest, lots and lots of counter-claims and vicious debates. But I'm also doubtful myself that it could outright claim to the the worlds leading financial centre and I do take on board your points about distinguishing finance from business and so on. These opening bursts are always the focus of debate because we have to say in a few words what it is. I think most people still believe New York to be the world's leading financial centre, and we would probably want to avoid getting bogged down in the semantic debate about what exactly the difference between the financial centre and the business centre is in the opening burst. Not sure also that everyone would agree with you about that distinction, or that you are right to distinguish it so precisely. To take one example, does investment banking come under finance or business? If the former, New York wins hands down on it, with I believe 4 out of 5 of the worlds' leading investment banks... we could go on.... I'm not fiercely opposed to your sentence in your final para, but I suspect others will knock it over even if I leave it alone. I think a slightly more detailed, and just slightly more accurate one would work, and also that we should continue this on the London talk page. How about "an important settlement for around two millenia, London is now one of the world's most important international financial and business centres"? MarkThomas 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. But maybe just leave out the word "international" and have "an important settlement for around two millenia, London is now one of the world's most important financial and business centres". Also I agree it would be good to continue this discussion on the London talk page. Wjfox2005 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I really would sooner you not do further edits on the intro until it's been agreed on the discussion page. I am sure this will annoy you, but on something as important as this, it's best to discuss and agree before changing it again. MarkThomas 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edit to John Lennon
Hi. You recently edited this article and appeared to blank content, without an edit summary explaining your decision to do so. This gives your edit the appearance of vandalism, which I'm sure is not the case. Regards, --Dweller 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
