User talk:TomPhil/archive4

This is an archive of my talk page. If you wish to leave me a new message, please click here to leave it on my current talk page. If you post a message to me on my talk page, I will respond on that page unless you request otherwise.

Living Legend

Thanks for catching that I missed adding the original page to Living Legend. I wanted to kick myself! Rhindle The Red 01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Derekclark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Derekclark.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not an expert on the niceties of the fair use system. Theoretically I'm sure that someone could take a photo of Derek Clark and submit it. Whether it would be reasonable to do so is an entirely subjective question, which depends to an extent on whether any Wikipedia members happen to know Derek Clark personally or come into contact with him on a regular basis. I don't know what it is "reasonable" for a Wikipedian to do to get hold of such a picture. Ultimately I suppose whether it is "reasonable" to get hold of a replacement is simply a matter of opinion. If you really think that it serves Wikipedia's best interests for the article to be without a picture, then so be it, as I obviously cannot argue that the image "is not replaceable at all". TomPhil (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tomwise.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tomwise.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jeffreytitford.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeffreytitford.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RogerHelmer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RogerHelmer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GrahamBooth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GrahamBooth.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Knapman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Knapman.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nigelfarage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nigelfarage.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

Your account will be soon suspended due to inappropriate use.

Your WikiPedia will be suspended from the 16/02/2007 to 16/5/2007

[Please Note ALL OF YOUR IP'S WILL BE BANNED INCLUDING SUBNETS HOSTNAMES DOMAIN WEBHOPS VPN CONNECTIONS AND DNS MERGING CONNECTIONS FROM DHCP SERVERS] - The preceding unsigned comment was left by 82.17.69.83

Hi. Thank you for your message and welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortuantely you were not very clear in your comment. Please could you further clarify which of my contributions you are referring to. You might also find the pages on talk pages and Wikipedia's banning policy interesting, as well as the policy on personal attacks. Please also be informed that unregistered users do not have the authority to issue bans. Perhaps you would like to sign up for a user account and run for adminship. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. TomPhil (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically...

According to Wikipedia policy, only Reality TV show winners should recieve their own articles. There are few exceptions-such as if another contestant has a very notable TV career. This article also cites no sources-for all I know this entire article could be made up (I'm not suggesting that, by the way). This article is npt linked from other pages such as The X Factor (UK TV Series) and doesn't include the standard musician's infobox, unlike articles such as here. For these reasons, I believe the article should be redirected to the X Factor page. Sorry for any inconvienience caused. Dalejenkins 08:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I cannot see anywhere in the Wikipedia Deletion Policy where it says that you can simply wipe and redirect a page without any consultation. The page on notability in music that you refer to says:

“

Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion.

”

The general page on notability also says:

“

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.

”

As this article has been listed for deletion before and failed to reach a community consensus that the topic was non-notable, and as the notability of an article cannot decrease over time, I would consider that without another vote on whether it should be deleted, the decision of the previous one should hold.

Also, having no music infobox and no references is not a grounds for deletion. ^Tom _Phil 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Kimmelman

In case you haven't noticed, User:Linebacker767 keeps removing speedy delete tags from Jimi Kimmelman: he deleted yours, and I've added them twice and he's deleted both. I left a couple of comments asking if it was a mis-placed user page, but haven't had any response. Mark Grant 01:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. It seems to have been deleted now so hopefully he won't recreate it. ^Tom _Phil 09:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Olympic Village

I noticed you placed a {{future}} template on the top of the article. I was still in the process of adding more information about the building that you may have not read. Construction for the building began in February 2007, so would {{current}} be a more appropriate template tag? Mkdw ^talk 09:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think that the current template is appropriate. I added the template on the basis that the village will not be built and operational for some time, therefore essentially the existence of the village itself is someting that will be in the future. It may for example be delayed, or there may be a need to change the plans due to some unforseen circumstance. That was my justification for adding the template. However, you are obviously more informed on the topic than me so remove it if you feel appropriate. ^Tom _Phil 09:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Militant Elvis Party

Dear sir,

Please understand that I am founder and Deputy Leader of the Church of the Militant Elvis Party.

The statements made are true and well founded. For instance the appointment of 'Lesbian Elvis' as the new leader was announced on Radio Nottingham on Thursday 8th March 2007 [John Holmes Show].

The other votes cast and the comming local elections are matters of record here in Nottingham - see www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk.

How do you suggests that these matters are presented in a form that will enable them to be sustained?

Yours

Lord Biro - Church of the Militant Elvis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.138.218.223 (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2007

Hi. Thanks for your message.

There is no problem with the amount of votes received. I did incorrectly add a tag that they should be referenced by removed this a minute later.

As for the dummy leader, that part of the article was written in a very unencyclopedic and sarcastic manner (for example the suggestion that "dummies have been prominent politicians before eg Gerald Ford, Al Gore, Geoff Hoon". Wikipedia is not the place for such jokes; try Uncyclopedia.

The whole tone of that section was not appropriate; it starts "The Church of the Militant Elvis Party is proud to announce". This is an encyclopedia, not a site for press releases. It also referred to a photo that I could not find.

I am reluctant to accept that a dummy can lead a political party (at least a dummy in the sense that you mean it). I am also unsure how a dummy can be "gay".

If you really think that it should be readded, it must be done in a much more neutral point of view, encyclopedic manner, with actual references (there is no way to verify that it was broadcast on the radio): something like "in x month, the Party announced (reference) that it had appointed a female dummy, "Lesbian Elvis" as leader." I cannot see that any of the rest of the paragraph can stay.

Finally, I noticed that in one of your edit summaries to the Church of the Militant Elvis page you stated "Lord Biro would appreciate leaving the contents 'untouched'". Can I remind you that this is a Wiki, and the idea is that anybody can edit any article.

Hope this helps; please contact me again if you have any further questions. ^Tom _Phil 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daz Sampson

Thank you for your message. With respect, I don't think that it is valid to exclude sourced information on a subject because you find it offensive to that subject - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Try googling and you will see that many commentators have suggested the similarity in appearance. It is not libelous to mention the fact that third parties believe that Huntley and Sampson look similar. If the article were to assert that they do indeed look alike then that would clearly be POV, however, the article does not express a view. In conclusion, I would suggest you look for sources refuting this link and if you find them, add them to the article. Brine Pepaz 13:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you have edited the article since I left the message on your talk page to include the word "reputed". The edit that you made that my message was in response to did not say "reputed" but said that they did look similar, which you yourself have admitted is clearly POV. The websites that you have listed are hardly reliable references in violation of WP:ATT and WP:BLP, and just because something is on the Internet does not make it encyclopedic. I cannot see that the addition of that information, which is potentially libellous and is most certainly very offensive, adds anything to the article. It really is not in any way relevant, and because of the strength of the allegation, backed up by a few dodgy websites, I cannot see that this can possibly be NPOV. ^Tom _Phil 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a solicitor specialising in civil law, I can assure you that reporting the fact (with sources) that someone has suggested someone looks like someone else, no matter how unflattering that comparison may be, is not a libel. It would seem to me that you are pursuing some sort of agenda by seeking to surpress this information. If you must insist on pursuing this matter, I suggest you start a RFC. 86.6.207.111 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that 86.6.207.111 and Brine Pepaz are the same person; please correct me if I am mistaken. Firstly, in your first revision to the article, the one that I initially made contact with you about, you stated that Daz Sampson was similar in appearance to Ian Huntley, not that others had suggested he was - not the sort of behaviour I would have expected of a civil law solicitor. Secondly, you state on your userpage that you are a student at Manchester University - which is it? Thirdly, I cannot see what "information" I am supposed to be supressing, or what "agenda" I am supposed to have. The fact that a few dodgy websites have compared a pop singer to a child killer is hardly an important piece of information, is it? There is a photo of Daz in the article; surely people can make their own judgement? I wonder what agenda you are persuing - why are you so keen that Daz should be compared to Ian Huntley? The talk page clearly shows that there has been a prior discussion where the outcome was that this type of edit was clearly inappropriate, and a quick check shows that this page has previously been semi-protected to prevent this type of thing being added. In light of this I fail to see the point in opening up the issue for discussion once more, but I shall list it if you really insist on wasting everyone's time with it. ^Tom _Phil 20:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Exclusion Act

Hi I don't understand your revert on the Chinese Exclusion Act. Please clarify — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.126.64 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2007

Hi. Thanks for your message. I reverted the edit because it does not make sense. I cannot see what it is getting at. You may wish to rephrase it to make your meaning clearer. ^Tom _Phil 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it from "The act did not (it did) excluded Chinese laborers..." to "The act excluded Chinese laborers..." Please explain how the edit does not make sense. Also, I don't understand your message calling my edit a "test" and why you would refer me to the sandbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.232.126.64 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. I have checked the difs again and you are correct. I read the difs the wrong way round and thought that you had added "did (did not)" rather than removed it. Sorry about that; it was entirely my mistake. ^Tom _Phil 08:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I knew it would be deleted and I know the rules. I was just trying to make a point.

I am sorry for taking up your time and having to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redart2 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your apology is appreciated. It's a much more mature response than some that I get to warnings. ^Tom _Phil 08:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your letter to Mail

Glad to hear of your letter, have you seen this thread [1] Giano 10:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've left a message about the letters to the Mail there. ^Tom _Phil 10:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Wage Regulation

Did you make the original edit/creation of the article wage regulation? Chris01720 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. It was a long time ago, so I cannot remember exactly what happened, and in fact I thought you had the wrong person when I read your message, but now having visited the article I do remember. What happened was that I broke up the National Minimum Wage Act article into two or three parts to make it more manageable. I think that the content of the Wage Regulation article was simply cut and pasted from the National Minimum Wage Act article. In turn, that article at the time was written entirely by User:Wikidea

At the time I either didn't realise that the content was so flawed (as I was a relatively new editor) or I hoped that someone would come along and improve it. Looking at the article, it looks like it has the potential to be improved, but it is not a specialist area of mine. I think I stumbled across the article when doing some research and decided that it was too dense and too wide-ranging to all stay in the National Minimum Wage Act article. Hopefully the article can be saved by someone with knowledge of the field having a look at it. Even though I am not an expert, I would have a look at making it more neutral, but unfortunately am very busy at the moment. ^Tom _Phil 09:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is a relative subject for an encyclopedia. However, it appears to me that there is so little worth saving that it should be wiped clean. I think if someone tried to clean it up it would still have an underlying bias because it's more than just the language used in the article. I think it would be best to start clean. It's unfortunate that an article must be wiped, but sometimes it's best. Though, I'm only an editor and not an admin, so the decision isn't up to me. Chris01720 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original author of the article seems to have totally rewritten the page now in a far more encyclopedic manner. ^Tom _Phil 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop your repeated vandalism and POV-pushing. This is not the Daily Mail, kindly keep your views to yourself.Chronic The Wedgehog 15:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... can you give an example of this supposed "vandalism and POV-pushing"? I presume that this is an attack on me in response to my warning to you regarding comparing Daz Sampson to a paedophile? Considering that doing so constituts an immediate block, I thought that I was being generous only giving you a final warning, especially considering that a few days previously you had also deleted a number of warnings off your talk page, that you had then joked about it, and that you had previously been given warnings for amongst other things trolling. Please grow up and stop vandalising Wikipedia and attacking those who revert your vandalism. Thank you. ^Tom _Phil 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message Query

Hi,

I recieved a msg saying I had made a change on wiki, though I have no changed anything whatsoever.. ..

please feel free to contact me on <E-mail> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.65.195 (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2007

Please do not worry about this. The message was probably intended for someone else using the same IP address as you. This may be someone who was using the same computer or Internet connection, or may be because of the way your ISP allocates IP addresses. If the message is irrelevant to you, please ignore it. To prevent yourself getting irrelevant messages such as this in the future, why not consider creating an account. I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to contact me if you need further assistance. ^Tom _Phil 22:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VandalismLog

I think it's neat how you have a Vandalism log. It appears to be automated and I was wondering what you use to create that? Not sure how I stumbled onto your userpage, but I know the minute I leave it I will forget your name! So can you please respond my talk page? Thanks! Deflagro 19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have replied on your talk page as requested. Just for reference I also will place a copy of my reply here: Hi. Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page regarding vandalism logs. The logs are automatically generated when you use the VandalProof software to find and revert vandalism. For more information about the software, please go to the VandalProof page. Hope this helps. ^Tom _Phil 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Might look at that. Right now I use Twinkle. Thanks again! Deflagro 23:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]