User talk:Bletchley

Welcome!

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bletchley! I am Auawise and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you are new to Wikipedia, but you might want to consider that this particular article has seen a lot of argument arising out of making edits without discussing them. I think that the level of the changes you are making shoudl be discussed first. Please use the article discussion page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to know that your edits have been over-written in the page merge (previously discussed on the talk page). This is no reflection on you, or your suggested changes. As Arcayne suggests, you may wish to get involved in the discussion on the talk page. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that at least two images you uploaded related to the Ripper suspects page had completely inaccurate information listed. You claimed that the Fiegenbaum and D'Onston images were 19th century works whose creators are now dead. Both images were actually created in the last couple of years as artistic interpretations. You violated the illustrator's copyright and put incorrect information in to try to justify it. Please be more careful in the future. 76.114.86.121 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photo composite (modern illustration created for a modern documentary, not part of actual ongoing police work) and the alleged illustration of Kosminski (that's not from 1888, it's from an unknown modern artist, used without permission) also were falsely labeled. 76.114.86.121 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ceddowes.gif, 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. Nv8200p talk 04:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read and enjoyed the article John Theophilus Desaguliers and I would like to thank you for your contributions to it, especially the bit about him having invented the planetarium – I find that adds a significant element of interest to the article. The infobox looks great, and the external links you added look like good sources of additional information. I see you're relatively new here; I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia and stick around for a long time! --Coppertwig (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your image of him does not seem to have taken ? RGCorris (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

|religion = See main text

I like this change, but for the one flaw, that for the readers that this really matters to, they won't be interested in reading...   :-(   Still I like this idea. First read, then read more elsewhere, _then_ come back with why he was obviously a Zen-Zoroastrian with Animist leanings. Shenme (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your claim of no consensus, I'm curious if you read the arguments in the full discussion section at Template talk:Nobel icon that preceded the "informal vote". In particular I'm interested in your response to the argument of how this would be handled if people started applying this to other awards, such as the Emmy, Presidential Medal of Freedom, Purple heart, etc. If you would be willing to respond to these questions at the template talk page I would be grateful. Also, given that the discussion is, at the moment, running heavily in favor of removal, it does seem rather counterproductive to add the icon to twenty-some pages, without using edit summaries immediately after posting to the discussion. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 09:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring and instead help the discussion reach a meaningful conclusion. Thanks. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were merely restoring what was already out there in loving consensus. No war intended. I am indeed participating in the discussion. Perhaps, it is your removals before having gone through the proper process of an RfC and then a public request for deletion process that needs self-reflection. I note there were technical difficulties setting up an RfC. However, have you guys emailed wiki support to get it fixed? Can we agree that both removals and additions should cease, until the discussion has come to a conclusion? That seems symmetrical to me. Bletchley (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted in my comments on the discussion page, my edits were explicitly intended to stimulate discussion, as interested editors are unlikely to otherwise be aware of it. I did actively seek support and was basically told to contact the bot editor, who has not been around. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting wiki articles to make a point or gain attention is questionable under WP. The correct approach is an RfD followed by a TfDBletchley (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making well-documented, good-faith edits after considerable discussion, and even then making them slowly and deliberately for the express purpose of avoiding a misunderstanding of consensus, can hardly be considered disruption to prove a point. I believe I have followed both the letter and spirit of WP:BRD, but if I have erred, please do advise as to what I missed. While I don't see where WP:RFD enters into this (please let me know if I've missed something), another editor has initiated a WP:TFD. You are, of course, invited to weigh in. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Allen Clarke (educationalist), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Clarke (educationalist). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Flewis^(talk) 12:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Flewis^(talk) 12:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still writing it. Not so fast.Bletchley (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some great work on Taman Shud Case. I'm slowly trying to work it up to Featured Article status so anyhting else you can add would be greatly appreciated. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the Taman Shud article. I'll chase it down. Good going with the other image of his handwriting too. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I'll find some more time to search through old newspapers on the topic to further build it up. I'd say either he was a spy or someone with a huge grudge against Boxall. Anyway, between us we should be able to make the article good enough quality for at least "Good Article" status. --Roisterer (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vice president I'd love to fuck (VPILF), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Neologism. Also, the references are not reliable sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Quantumobserver (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vice president I'd love to fuck (VPILF), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice president I'd love to fuck (VPILF). Thank you. Evb-wiki (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that you stop adding comments below every single vote that's not in favour of keeping your article. It's not going to help, and it will just get people's backs up. That's friendly advice. Deb (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Allen Clarke (educationalist).jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated your image File:Stephen Gray 1666.jpg for deletion because someone noticed that it is actually a picture of someone else. If you think this is in error, please refer to the rationale on the page, and if you still disagree, delete the speedy and we can explore it further on the talk page. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "religion" field in the Infobox Scientist template is only supposed to be filled in if the religious affiliation had some importance in the scientist's life. I've commented on this at Infobox Scientist talk. --Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over at the infobox discussion, I wanted to say that I like your second guideline, but I didn't because the page is getting too long and hard to follow, so I thought I'd wait until the current back-and-forth settles down. Anyway, thanks for the wording -- it looks good to me. Just one small point (that I don't mind about), re (c), the Einstein article actually says "See main text" (not "See main article"). The reason I'm over here telling you this now is that it looks like you've accidentally pasted twice in your most recent reply. I suggest you remove the one you don't want. I'll see you over there! --Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is meant to be a very brief summary of the most important details of an individuals life. Dawkins childhood religion (effectively his parents religion, he really would have had no choice in the matter) is not one of those important details. It should of course be mentioned in the body of the article. But this move to try and stuff every minor detail into the info box defeats their purpose, leaving them bloated. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scientist friend in Austria, not notable so no article. She does not believe in God, but she does not really ever talk about her beliefs, nor does she write about them. That side of her life is fairly unimportant to her. In Austria, if you were registered as Catholic by your parents, a percentage of your income is deducted by the Government and given to the Catholic church. You can nominate to stop this if you please, but she does not. Why? She comes from a conservative family and lives in a conservative area. It is easier for her to go with the flow, and she does not care enough about the issues to want the grief that she would receive from stopping it. If we were to write about her, the only reliable sources we have would indicate she is a Catholic, but this would be totally misleading.

This applies to many scientists. In the era of state religions it would have been dangerous if not fatal to express a religious view not in line with the state. In the 50's, in America, when atheism was next to communism, being an atheist could have been fatal to a career. And less you think I am being one sided we have no idea how many Soviet era Russian scientists whom reliable sources label as atheists were secretly theists. My feeling is that most scientists just want to get on with their work, with as little outside grief as possible. If that means going to church once a week, so be it.

So I think that unless a scientist has written about their own beliefs, or perhaps a reliable source has discussed them in some detail, we should not discuss them, other to say perhaps that so and so was brought up in the xyz church, etc. But to put this in the info box, as a hard and fast fact, just like date of birth or nationality, is wrong. We just cannot be sure. And where we do have them discussing their religious views, as per for instance Einstein, we find they are too complex to be labled like that anyway. So what is the point? --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Yazzcover.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. Aspects (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have repeated yourself on Template talk:Infobox Scientist, you may want to delete one of the paras :-) --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, if you haven't alrready, you might be interested to check out the latest bit of info I found on the Taman Shud Case. --Roisterer (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps getting stranger, what with multiple copies of The Rubiayat found in the back of Glenelg cars and the like. I've still got a bit to go with the research but I think it is taking shape. I might even try to contact Stephen Orr to see what other sources he has. Would love your feedback on what else you think needs to be expanded. --Roisterer (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Faraday sig.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 12:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HomiJBhabha.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently did some work on the Adolf Fick article because two people of the same name seem to have been mixed up. I also found and agreed with your comment here. Would you be able to look at the two articles and see if the confusion has gone now?

• Adolf Eugen Fick
• Adolf Gaston Eugen Fick

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SomertonMan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Bulwersator (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the photo of this code. Do you know the original source? In particular, do you know if the original scan was 1,802 × 1,440 pixels or if that is an upsample?

Blue Tie (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Poynting sig.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Emil Wolf.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, im from ES:WP. I like to ask you if you can upload to commons this image: [[File:H. A. Newton sig.jpg]]. I like to upgrade the article in ES:WP with that image. Thanks天使 BlackBeast Do you need someting? 01:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John Arthur Todd (1908-1994).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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Lord kelvin sig.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Grainger tomb.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sir Rudolf Ernst Peierls.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) 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]