User talk:Seb Patrick

Seb Patrick
Profile • WikiWork • Currently... • Talk • Contribs • AfD • FAC • PR

Hello, this is Seb. I'm afraid I can't take your call at the moment, but if you leave a message and four tildes after the beep, then I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Beep.

Red Dwarf

Just asking about the link you removed from Red Dwarf page, i believe that the link isn't to copyrighted material, it is out of copyright as being less than a certain time it is allowed. Also it follows Google Video's rules for copyright violation. 86.129.89.52 13:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm really not sure how clips from the pilot, however brief, can be classed as not breaking copyright. NBC own the rights to the pilot, and the makers of the Red Dwarf DVDs have stated how expensive it was to obtain the rights to show even the briefest of clips on the "Dwarfin' USA" documentary. Furthermore, I wasn't sure how the clip was particularly relevant to the Wiki entry. If you feel it is (a) relevant and (b) qualifies as fair use rather than breaching copyright, I'd suggest discussing it on the entry's talk page in an attempt to reach a consensus. Seb

No, i doubt it is 100% legal, i had no idea it was expensive for GNP to get hold of the clips. I think best to leave it. 86.129.89.52 13:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish and Mouse

I've created a brief article on this strip in its own right, which expands a bit on the section on the RotR page. Hopefully I'll be able to add a little bit more and also add some images if I'm able to get my old RotR comics back.... ChrisTheDude 13:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy's Troubles

Yeah, that was probably my favourite RotR strip back then, like you say it's a shame there's so little web presence for these stories, I'd have thought more people had nostalgia for them. I'm thinking of doing an article on Johnny Dexter next, that'll probably finish off the coverage of the "classics" of RotR (except maybe for those later ones you mention, but I had stopped reading it by then...). I've now been reunited with my old RotR annuals, courtesy of my parents, but it seems like the comics themselves are now lining a landfill somewhere, which is a shame..... ChrisTheDude 13:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Hill

Hey Seb! - Thanks for the comments on the Damon Hill peer review...it's now up for an FA, please can you show your support, please? --Skully Collins 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and your understanding overthe lack of images :) --Skully Collins 10:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As I mentioned, there was a bit of work that needed doing language-wise (including over-repetition of certain phrases, especially in the lead), and the section on his post-F1 career was a bit of a mess in places (especially the Pizza Hut and Jenson Button bits). But I've tidied those up the best I could, and I think as it stands it's got a decent shout. Not sure how much other support you'll get, as FAC voters are notoriously stingy and will always find something to pick at, but for me it's comprehensive enough and the career biography, especially, flows well. Seb Patrick 10:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...Personally I'd just bit satisfied that it's better then the Schumacher article. --Skully Collins 10:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisse transfer

Hi, Thanks for letting me know about the Cisse thing. I'll wait till its confirmed before i edit it next time. Thanks Again. Aprameya 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Liverpool

Thanks for notifying. That page was getting attacked constantly and I blindedly reverted any remove I've seen. Again, thanks for the notice. (: Kedi the tramp (talk • contribs • count) (Respond to me on my Talk.) 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new FAR/FARC process

Hi Seb

I noticed your excellent contributions to Roy of the Rovers on the FAC page, and wondered whether you'd be interested in dropping into WP:FAR occasionally (or often) to encourage, prod, critique, and—when the crunch comes—to declare "Keep" or "Remove". Your interests in popular culture and the media would be a bonus on top of your editing skills.

The new FAR process is now being swamped with nominations (currently 23 in FAR and 13 in FARC), and the four or five regulars are finding it difficult to service the needs of such a large process. The ideal is to encourage the guardians of the many substandard FAs to fix them; sometimes this happens, but all too often, a nomination is met with disinterest by those you'd have thought would be keen.

The contribution of more good reviewers there, particularly those who are focused on good writing, would have a powerful impact on the FA culture in WP.

Tony 08:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "vandalism"

Thanks for the heads up. As you then noticed, I'd already spotted them, but I appreciate it anyway -- just in case! The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goal Timings

What is your source for goal timings on the Liverpool FC page? Thanks.--Franchecomté 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a video of the ITV footage as it was broadcast. Even though the timings themselves may not be the official times (as it's ITV's own clock), the gap between them is surely still constant. I know there's debate over the whole "six/seven minutes" thing, but I just went back and watched it, and clocked the exact number of minutes/seconds between the two goals crossing the line. Seb Patrick 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hill

Hey Seb - Thanks for the messege...anyway, YOU should take some credit as well, I mean it wasn't just 4u1e who did most of the grammer work ;-), because it certainly wasn't me, because of my Autism :-(. --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 08:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'm late to the party :-) Thanks for the compliments, Seb. (Article seems to be holding up well under the strain on being on the front page!) 4u1e 21:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An FAC

In case you've got some time to glance over it, I've got (video game music composer) Frank Klepacki sitting in FAC. I blew a tire from working on it seven or eight hours yesterday, so my strategic distance is toast. I'll probably do some kind of hardcopy or reference-less copyediting today, but I'm asking for assistance on a few talk pages just in case. Thanks for considering. --Zeality 15:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of beat 'em ups undeletion request

I have nominated List of beat 'em ups to be undeleted, under the reasoning that it is not redundant to the category; it contains many games which are not covered by the category, and may never be able to be covered by it. In addition, the list can do more than the category. It can put date, developer, release date, system, et al., useful especially for articles that would be difficult to create an article for. I hope that you will vote on this and hopefully support its undeletion, on the basis that it does something that makes it not redundant to the category. [1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Hill reverts

Sorry Seb - It looks like we have a persistent wiki-user who goes against what is internationally believed. I was wondering, is reverting referenced material vandalism?--Skully Collins 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Red Dwaf— Isn't 1999 minus 1988 eleven years?

Hi Mr. Patrick: How I stubbled on your Wikipedia article I don't even remember— I think I was Wiki-ing Craig Ferguson or something— (I'm an an American, so I'm not even familiar with the series Red Dwarf— sorry. But anyway, at the beginning of your article you write: "Red Dwarf is a British science fiction sitcom that ran for eight series, from 1988 to 1999". Now math is my achilles heel, and not to be a wise aas, but Isn't 1999 minus 1988 eleven years?

Gary Walmsley gwalmsley@tierneyagency.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.149.81.4 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Melchester badge.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Melchester badge.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Red Dwarf IWCD.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Red Dwarf IWCD.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Red Dwarf IWCD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Red Dwarf IWCD.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 06:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Peteandpete.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Peteandpete.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 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool FC Kit Manufacturer & Sponsorship

This is quite confusing to use, but did you remove this from the Liverpool FC Page?

it contained the history of the Liverpool Sponsors & Kit Manufacturer. Definately veery imformative for new Liverpool fans out there.

RoTR

OK, convey my apologies to the geezer..... ChrisTheDude 09:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool FC task force

Hi, I noticed you have made a number of edits to Liverpool F.C. related articles. You might be interested in joining WP:LFC. John Hayes^talk 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RedDwarfUSA.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RedDwarfUSA.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Domestic Correction 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dwarf peer review

Hi there. The Red Dwarf article has just been requested for a Peer Review. As an interested editor of the article I was wondering if you would like to join in on the discussions. As you will be aware, the article has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. If you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Dwarf --Nreive (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Melchester badge.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Melchester badge.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Renford.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Renford.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sebpatrick.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sebpatrick.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 13:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rotr-tiger.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rotr-tiger.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rotr-sky.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rotr-sky.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Kit body redV.png

File:Kit body redV.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Kit body redV.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Kit body redV.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information Pioneers

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Information Pioneers, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.iwr.co.uk/news-and-reference/3010255/BCS-celebrates-%E2%80%98information-pioneers-. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Information Pioneers

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Information Pioneers, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.iwr.co.uk/news-and-reference/3010255/BCS-celebrates-%E2%80%98information-pioneers-, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Information Pioneers and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Information Pioneers, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Information Pioneers with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Information Pioneers. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Information Pioneers saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR nomination of Roy of the Rovers

I have nominated Roy of the Rovers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Grondemar 00:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Roy of the Rovers Monthly.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Roy of the Rovers Monthly.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Melchester badge.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Melchester badge.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Seb Patrick. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Can't believe it's more than a decade since I assisted you in a small way in getting ROTR to Featured status......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roy of the Rovers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hummel and Bob Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section at George Clarke (architect)

I am disappointed to see that you characterised the section I wrote concerning his personal probity as "doesn't seem particularly relevant to biography". It's a memorialisation of how Fake News was created in real time by a reporter, then picked up within hours and repeated by other media that are supposedly reliable sources, the type that are are deemed by WP convention to have vetted such leads as objective and accurate. Clearly this was not the case. It's fully referenced and written in WP:NPOV, IMO. The only thing I disagree with is the analogy of a falling child with a bowling ball, but a bag of taters probably wouldn't have provided as much sensationalism for the BBC video - mass-concentration and air-resistance probably would have made minimal difference.

I am interested to know how someone who appears to be a full-time professional writer only performed two actions in five months including deleting this section? How/why did you arrive at this article? As we clearly have polarised views on what is appropriate WP content, I have restored the section and placed a new Talk section where you can continue this, and where other editors can see and comment. This would be the first stage in any content-dispute, as I'm sure you will be aware. No-one else has commented or complained.

I am around WP only spasmodically mostly performing maintenance edits and I now write prose only as a last resort (ie - when I consider it imperative, as with this instance), so have only just seen your deletion when checking recent changes. Compliments of the Season to you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]