User talk:Eric144
Re: Stanely Castle
[edit]Sorry Eric, maybe I'm being thick but I'm not seeing any absolute contradiction, though I can see it might be a bit ambiguous. Feel free to reword it if you can. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
John. One part says it was probably built on an island, the other one says it lies on a promentary, that's all. Not an absolute contradiction, no. I only mentioned it in a fairly light hearted way. It looks strange, that's all. I won't change it.
all the best
Eric
--Eric144 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you mean. I think the idea is that it was an island when the area was marsh, but now that its in a reservoir, it looks more like a promontory. I suppose it depends where the water level is... Difficult to tell what is right as I've only seen it with water up to the walls. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Poorly sourced POV additions on living persons
[edit]
Please stop adding opinion peice sourced or otherwise poorly sourced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see also the NPOV policy. Thank you. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would highly advise you to take a look at WP:NOTVAND, and have a reread of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Several of your actions on Zac Goldsmith, including but not limited to edit warring on disputed BLP content without attempt at discussion, has been completely inappropriate. Do not do it again. NW (Talk) 05:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare
All I have done is added text fom a Guardian article, then put it back when an unregistered, semi literate user removed it. So, I have no idea what you you are talking. Have you actually read the history of the article ? I really don't appreciate being threatened, told off or patronised by a total stranger. I really don't. Please reply in English if you can, without hiding behing Wikipedia robo speak. I explained that the anonymous user was biased because this wasn't removed "Goldsmith is described by reporters to be of a gentle disposition.<ref name="Young, gifted and Zac"/". That's why I undid his removal
--Eric144 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
[edit]
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Jeff G. ツ 04:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Miles Copeland
[edit]If you object to content I merely tagged, then remove it. If some of the material I removed can be sourced, then source it. As for the outright conspiracy theories, message board forums, "Free Web.com," and "Woodstock Journal" do not meet Wikipedia policy regarding what constitutes reliable sources. Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Files missing description details
[edit]
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Possibly unfree File:Barrheadsouth.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barrheadsouth.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. —innotata 23:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Eric144. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Examination of Apollo Moon photographs for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Examination of Apollo Moon photographs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Hawkheadbridge.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
