User talk:M0RHI
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Archives
Archives for each batch of 20 headings are available: Archive 1 - March 2006 - June 2007
[edit] Spacing
The bot recently went through Rockall and changed kilometrage from "900 km" to "900 km" [1]. While this doesn't affect the appearance of the article, by just adding a non-breaking space, is this standard procedure for displaying distances, or a malfunction, as I've never seen it before? Cheers. M0RHI | Talk to me 11:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there. Yeah, it's part of the SI recommendations and it's mentioned here in the Manual of Style. It's not a strict requirement on Wikipedia or anything, but it's nice if you can remember to do it. Cheers, CmdrObot 14:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rockall
[edit] Vandalism
Yours is the vandalism. You cannot say in an article "and agreed among the neighbouring nations as in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the United Kingdom" and at the same time "disputed between the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark (for the Faroe Islands), and Iceland." You can't say that even if it disagrees with your political opinion. It's just nonsense. Accept the fact that it is disputed and stop vandalising the article. I will continue to protect the integrity of wikipedia even if you won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.71.42 (talk • contribs)
- You are making POV edits, as defined by WP:POV. The owning state should come first because of neutrality. The article make it clear that the island lies within the EEZ of the UK - this is fact, and no member state objects to this. What they object to is the ownership of the island. This is perfectly neutral. If you'd like to propose some wording on the talkpage, go ahead and we can work on it, but your modification is currently POV and detracts from the article. Furthermore, you have violated the three revert rule and I ask you to stop and deal with this in a mature way. I have copied this to your talkpage too. M0RHI | Talk to me 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire, you were the person reverting. I did the change, you did the revert. In fact you did it more than three times. Secondly you state "the owning state should come first because of neutrality". The entire point is that ownership of rock is disputed so your statement is illogical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.239.63 (talk • contribs)
- If you'd like to familiarise yourself with WP:NEUTRAL and WP:3RR, you may be surprised. My point was that you were introducing bias. The entity of Rockall is internationally agreed as currently within the boundaries, even though some states desire it as their own. It should therefore be referred to as having continental shelf disputed between the currently internationally accepted owner of the island, and those that challenge it. This is simply neutrality. Your edits detracted from this, and this is why I reverted. Feel free to come back with some serious and constructive points. You'll also notice that the first thing to do when the three revert rule has been broken is revert to the version before the edit war immediately. This is when I pointed out that you had contravened the 3RR. I appreciate contributions, but please, at least discuss contentious issues firstly, than jumping straight in and editwarring. Cheerio. M0RHI | Talk to me 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
Thanks. I've been meaning to cite all the agreements registered with the UN and not just the British/Irish one. But I haven't had time to search and won't have any time soon. So be my guest! --Red King 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Although the agreement I found is only for the continental shelf, not the EEZs. These seriously need to be cited. Perhaps whoever did the map can produce his basis for it? --Red King 17:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] University of St Andrews Students' Association
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on University of St Andrews Students' Association, by 85.158.137.195 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because University of St Andrews Students' Association fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting University of St Andrews Students' Association, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Students' Association
The Association's article is: -Uncited -Fails notability test for non-profit (not national or international in scope) It should be merged with University of St Andrews. The University gives the organisation its relevance; alone it does not merit recognition or an article. The same is true of most Unions except Oxford and Cambridge, which actually have important alumna(e) and are referred to in the media and the press. The St Andrews Association cannot claim the same and, like other Unions, should be deleted or merged with its University.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Discostu333 (talk • contribs)
Added: There are still numerous uncited sections; until citations are inserted this article should remain a candidate for deletion. Allow the Wikipedia powers to decide objectively--- rather than allowing your Association connection to bias your view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.182.100 (talk • contribs)
- But it is not a candidate for deletion, it was proposed for deletion. I have made sure that the reasons for proposition are not met. Please file an Article for deletion if you're still aggrieved. M0RHI | Talk to me 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are many uncited passages still, and the notability test--- third party sources--- has not been met. The proposal for deletion is valid; do not undo it again.Invoking WP:3RR
[edit] You're welcome
Thanks. I knew that would be a tough close and that I would have to explain myself at some length. I knew I would get messages about it. I was so relieved to get a message like yours; it made all the meditating worth it.
Good luck with the student orgs article. I will try to find some examples from US universities when I can. Daniel Case 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Unionlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Unionlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Serco page
Hi
Am new to Wikipedia and if I have understood it right, you reversed a few amendments and additions I made to the page about Serco Group plc so I wanted to get in touch to talk through the right approch for getting accuracy. Other thoughts/ questions in my head are:
- someone vandalised the site changing the name of the chairman to Kevin Keegan and the CEO to Christopher Robin, and for some reason the page keeps reverting to that, but then pops back again. Any ideas why this may be?
- I can probably get links to newspaper articles on the company, but is that of value for the site?
- re verifiable data sources. Do stock exchange announcements come under that category as they come under the FSA regulations re accuracy etc.
Birthdayboy
[edit] Spelling in Elvis Presley article
Hi. I noticed that you changed one word from American (judgment) to British (judgement) spelling in the Elvis article. While I prefer British spelling myself, as I understand Wikipedia guidelines, they discourage such changes purely for spelling unless the article is inconsistent in its usage. Furthermore, while both British and American English are acceptable, articles on American subjects will generally use American English. Therefore I would respectfully suggest that this change was inappropriate, though as it's trivial I haven't reverted it (no doubt the next American contributor to make changes will "correct" it again anyway). Rodparkes 01:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Changing the spelling should only take place anyway if it differs from the original quote (the word IS part of a quotation). Rikstar 07:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
