User talk:Briantist/archive1

Welcome!

Hi, Briantist/archive1, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

---

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
• Find everything in the Directory.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• Introduce yourself at the new user log.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
• If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
• To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
• Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Channel 4 logo

From the Channel 4 style guidelines: The Channel 4 identity should always be surrounded by a minimum area of space. The area of isolation ensures that headlines, text or other visual elements do not encroach on the logo. The area is defined by using a third of the height of the logo which is referred to as x. A margin of clear space equivalent to 0.3x is drawn around the logo to create the invisible boundary of the area of isolation.

It is important that the appearance of the logo remains consistent. The logo should not be misinterpreted, modified or added to. The logo must never be redrawn, adjusted or modified in any way. It should only be reproduced from the artwork provided. To illustrate this point some of the more likely mistakes are shown.

...

• Do not place the logo in a box.
• Do not place the logo in a frame.

If you revert the logo again, then this will be seen as vandalism, and you may be blocked.

-- 9cds^(talk) 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem with your browser, then you should use a better browser, or consider fixing the problem with the transparency (which is a known IE bug), and NOT changing the logo itself. Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you deliberately introduce incorrect information into a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I've had nearly 20 years working with TV corporate identities... The version that has been locked on to the page is wrong.

I'm just following the guidelines, mate. It has a white background if it's on something that's white. More importantly, it cannot be placed in a box. that's why I'm saying it's wrong. If it breaks in IE, then maybe you should create a version that is not in a box, but also which doesn't break in IE? -- 9cds^(talk) 13:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But the version you have installed is of poor resolution, and you are looking at the guidelines for printing on paper. It also breaks the rules as it is so large that gets a border from the box on the page ("Do not place the logo in a frame").

Well, as I said on the channel 4 talk page, feel free to create a higher resolution image that is transparent. Only reason I didn't do it myself is because I'm on a machine without suitable software. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you actually look at what is being used by Channel 4: into and out of ad-breaks and all other on-screen versions the logo is cut out of white. This is not possible on paper. This doesn't mean there has to be an additional background colour.-- 9cds^(talk) 13:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The best way to do this would be to have to whole box background white, but you are going against what is shown on the website.

Surely the purpose of wikipedia is to reflect what is actually shown to the viewer?

We have to follow guidelines -- 9cds^(talk) 13:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to ring Channel 4 to get their guidance, if that is what is required.

As said earlier, I have the C4 guidelines, of which I have pasted the excerpt about the logo above.-- 9cds^(talk) 13:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got new logos direct from the Channel 4 press office. Can I be alowed to upload these?

I'm not an admin, so I cannot unprotect the page. If they've got the transparent background, which will solve the issue with the "white box", and works in IE (which is buggy), then go ahead and upload once it's been unprotected. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ceefax clarification

Hi,

Can you please clarify the following sentence you added to the Ceefax article?-

There is still a limited Ceefax service broadcast alongside BBC World that covers British news on.

Is this related to 'Pages from Ceefax' (the section it was placed in), or does it just mean an ordinary (but limited) Ceefax service?

I didn't want to remove this, as it looks like worthwhile information.

Thanks.

Fourohfour 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

• This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista french image

Hello, thanks for uploading the image with a demonstration of the French version of Windows Vista. Would it be possible for you to re-submit this image without any third-party tools or logos present? It's a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy to display things like the Google logo if we aren't talking about Google. The image will have to be removed entirely if this isn't done. Thanks... sorry for the inconvenience! -/- Warren 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix it ASAP

License tagging for Image:Windows vista arabic.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows vista arabic.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Googolplex typo

Be that as it may, Google didn't exist until the mid-1990s. So any use of the word with that spelling prior to their organization was unintentional, and cannot possibly be a reference to the company. --JohnDBuell 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So Adams's publishers made a typo. Google's founders DID deliberately misspell Googol so that it could be trademarked. Coincidence. --JohnDBuell 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This was NOT a typo! It was Douglas' playful use of words... The spelling is THE SAME and the meaning is THE SAME too, as it is refering to one of the greatest computers of all time. Briantist 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

--I think this is fair--

• The name of Google's corporate HQ was (unwittingly) taken from the first book (1979, Chapter 25, page 127) when Lunkwill and Fook are shocked at Deep Thought's self-depreciation: "And are you not," said Fook leaning anxiously forward, "a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?" (Note the spelling is the same as Google, not the number googol). Briantist 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still just a coincidence. I think the folks at Google would just laugh. --JohnDBuell 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Additions to Hitchhiker's related articles

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you can't simply make the statements that you have been making in the articles you have been editing without serious proof. Any statements, especially those made in featured articles, require verifiable proof, which is why that statement appears under every edit window before an edit is saved. Please consider this in future. --JohnDBuell 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're getting close to violating WP:3RR and you're certainly violating Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please reconsider. --JohnDBuell 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As regards Greece, yes Adams traveled around Greece, as well as Turkey and other countries. And as regards naming, his choices of some names are also well documented - Hotblack Desiato being perhaps one of the most famous. The inspiration behind the "Zansellquasure Flamarion Bridge Club" is NOT documented, or at least not in a way that I've been able to verify. If you have a verifiable source, please share it. --JohnDBuell 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I do have the source, but it's not with me at the moment. I'll repost when I have the references. Briantist 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

BBC radio after switchover

I have written to the BBC to confirm that they will not be removing any radio services after switchover. I will re-edit when they re-confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantist (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. I wasn't aware, and have never suggested that, the BBC are going to remove any radio services from digital terrestrial television after the digital switchover. What I do know is that BBC Radio 1, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 3 and BBC Radio 4 are currently broadcast on Multiplex A and there are no plans for them to move. As Multiplex A is due to become a one of the 'commercial' multiplexes after the switchover, these radio stations will not be on the PSB multiplexes and therefore will not be available on all the relay transmitters like the channels on Multiplexes 1, 2 and B (including Five and S4C, which are moving). - Green Tentacle 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have written to the BBC for clarification on this point, but as far as I understand it BBC radio via Freeview is very popular and the BBC will have the space to carry these four 'original' stations on Multiplex 1 when it switches to 64QAM mode. The space on multiplex B is being 'gifted' to five, S4C and S4C2. I have written confirmation from both the BBC and S4C on this point.

From: Jackie Burdon, BBC

Date: Nov 29 2005 - 6:26pm

Five will move to one of the BBC muxes at switchover, as will S4C and S4C2 in Wales. This is to ensure that, as public service broadcasters, they have near-universal coverage in the digital world.

The move will be possible without displacing any BBC services, because at switchover the BBC will return from 16QAM to 64QAM mode but maintain equivalent coverage and robustness of signal thanks to the high power transmissions which will be possible post switchover.

The mode change will create capacity equivalent to two standard channels on each of the BBC's multiplexes - enough for five, S4C and S4C2.

S4C isn't a whole multiplex in this instance - are you thinking of SDN, the multiplex operator that was founded in part by S4C?

You are right that the three commercial multiplexes will not have the same level of universal coverage after switchover as the three psb muxes you describe - though I'm not sure we can assume they won't roll out at all. It is the case that they are not obliged to reach the same level of coverage as the psb muxes - and indeed will not be able to achieve it for technical reasons. But they may make a commercial decision to extend their coverage substantially.

So where's your evidence that the BBC radio stations are moving to a PSB multiplex? - Green Tentacle 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiplex names are not changing

I have provided evidence from primary web sources AND backed it up with the email listed above, the other user has NOT provided any evidence to support the repeated editing of suposition. I provided references to the relevant web pages, PDF documents and explained where the misunderstanding have arisen from.

The other user repeatedly DELETED the references I had supplied to verify the information that I provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantist (talk • contribs)

That's all fine (apart from using an email as a defence), but an edit war is not the way to do this. Use that article's discussion page, and share what evidence you have with the other user. Try and talk it through properly (and don't forget to sign your comments there - four tildes "~~~~" ). RobWill80 04:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ridiculous Records 010.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ridiculous Records 010.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Percent3.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Percent3.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Channel 4 - 4oD?

Hey. Just wondering why you deleted the large section on Channel 4's on demand service. Cheers, Coolmark18 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to, I have reverted it already. Briantist 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Art Of Noise sample

I'm curious as to why you're so protective of this sample excerpt and its credits - placing a sample on Wikipedia and stating it is an Unreleased Mix is the equivalent of uploading what you would call a "Promo Mix" and the track then getting a full release.

The sample you have uploaded MAY have come from a vinyl, printed as "Unreleased", but as you may or may not know, it has been. Three times. Once on the "Close Up (Hop)" vinyl, once as part of the "That Was Close" cassette mix and subsequently on the "That Was Close" addition to the "What Have You Done With My Body, God?" boxset. My changes, while not altering the sample itself and leaving your addition to the release listing above it (which, by the way, I also have a couple of issues with - let me check my full AON collection first before I amend THAT. And, yes, I do have EVERY AON release, including promos and reissues. I'm a bit of a fan meself...), merely acknowleged what the sample actually IS (not what it could have been from a promo copy), from a fresh visitors perspective. Which, with Wikipedia as a Encyclopedia, must be the priority. Thumbsucker-UK 14:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The lablel on the record says "UNRELEASED MIX" and therefore I am simply replicating the information onto Wikipedia. I had the cassingle too, and I know that it's all on there, but the sample was recorded from the vinyl, and we are documenting what ACTUALLY HAPPENED here not a reinterpritation of the events. The fact that the names of the remixes have been altered after the event does not actually effect the truth of where the sample that I have provided for the wikipedia actually came from. The cassingle I have calls the all-in-one-mix "Best of Close - Closest Hits - Close Enough - Come Closer" and I have "Closely Closely (Enoughs Enough), "Close-Up", "Close-Up (Hop)", "Edited". Briantist 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully appreciate your desire to replicate the facts as accurately as you can in regard to the sample you've uploaded but once again the best analogy I can think of is... if a track was initially issued on a promo printing, featuring what would subsequently become a full release, it would be more, if not beneficial, than certainly more relevant for a fresh reader with a passing interest in that track to be given the information as a full release. As it stands, your listing gives a reader the impression that this sample cannot be found anywhere because you have entered it as "Unreleased" when, by your own admission, it was. I'm not going to go in and re-edit this entry, you uploaded it and I frankly can't be that arsed to trample on your particular patch of this territory - I woud only appeal to your sense of pedantry to acknowledge that to someone interested in this track would be under the impression that this excerpt was "Unreleased" instead of what the sample excerpt was actually called on its FULL release.

Oh, and other thing - you read the title and listing on the cassette of "This Is Close" as titled "Best Of Close etc...". A warning; all the text on that part of the cassette insert is made up of, as per usual, the demented, arrogant, grandiose, pre-madonna waffling rantings of Mr Paul Morley (you ever get the feeling I ain't too keen on this self-serving prat?? For listening to him in interviews, you'd think the band would have never come to fruition without him. The arse.) The more comprehensive and accurate listing is on the other side of the insert, with the publishing legalities (reproduced here - http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=R&obid=53431) and can also be found in detail in the fantastic booklet that accompanies the boxset "...Body, God?" (I'd get that if you haven't already - amazing package, from a fans perspective, truly amazing ...). Right, that's my nit-picking over and done with. Let bygones be bygones? Thumbsucker-UK 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully apreciate, as I did at the time the marketing angle that Paul Morley brought to AON, and yes, there is a deliberate obfuscation caused by calling a mix "unreleased" when I bought it in the Virgin Megastore in Leeds in 1984. The problem with "...Body, God?" is that it is a rewriting of history, of course. Nit picking is good as it gets to the truth of the matter! Briantist 09:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! mattbr³⁰ 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually try to, but don't if the change is very minor... Briantist 13:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:BBC

Hi Briantist and thank you for helping out with the BBC Portal. Unfortunately, we cannot use the BBC logo anywhere other than within articles due to the fair use criteria that allows its usage on Wikipedia. I myself have had problems in the past with using the logo for the BBC stub template (the image was deleted) so unfortunately we are unable to use the BBC logo itself on the portal. We can however use images of BBC buildings, presenters and similar but rather annoyingly, not images. Wikiwoohoo 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a photo of the BBC logo that I took of the BBC logo at the science museaum, would that be OK?

I should imagine so, yes it would be. Wikiwoohoo 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Previewing

Hello Briantist, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. mattbr³⁰ 15:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am using an unreliable internet connection and use the save facility to stop my working being lost. Briantist 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, can I suggest that you either 'select all' and 'copy' the whole content of the article before pressing preview so that you have a copy of the changes you have made, or that you copy the whole text into a text editor such as Notepad or Word, make your changes and then paste back into the edit box and press preview? Making many saves makes it harder for other editors to see what changes you have made as well as cluttering up the page history, recent changes and other peoples watchlists. (It also means you only need one edit summary.) Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 11:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a Wikipedia requirement or simply yours? Briantist 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a requirement of Wikipedia or myself, but 'it is strongly recommended that you use this [show preview] prior to saving' and it is considered good practice by other editors. mattbr³⁰ 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're just trying to impose your own rules. Nice try. Briantist 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy Briantist 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to impose my own rules, asking users to use the preview button is common practice, due to the reasons previously stated and those listed at the link above. I'm not asking you to reduce all your edits on a page into one, but twelve consecutive edits to one page in under half an hour, eight of which were within six minutes, is excessive, and I am asking you to please follow the spirit of this request. Thank you, mattbr³⁰ 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy Briantist 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Image:0816.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:0816.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://bnb.bpweb.net/N24/news24.htm. As a copyright violation, Image:0816.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:0816.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

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 the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on [[Talk::Image:0816.jpg]]. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:0816.jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Wikiwoohoo 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I created the image ffs ••Briantist•• talk 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it was obviously one of the images from http://bnb.bpweb.net/N24/news24.htm. If you would like to upload the image again, please contact the person connected to the site who created the image and ask permission for its useage on Wikipedia. Otherwise, sites like The TV Room and TV & Radio Bits have given permission for use of their images, though bear in mind we don't want to clutter the countdown sections up. Your help with the articles relating to the BBC is much appreciated. Wikiwoohoo 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Big brother racism row.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Big brother racism row.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. mattbr³⁰ 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion of Image:BBC News 24 evolution 2.jpg==

A tag has been placed on Image:BBC News 24 evolution 2.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Duplicate of previous version of Image:BBC News 24 evolution.JPG.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:BBC News 24 evolution 2.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wikiwoohoo 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Google

Grow at least one ball

I'm not particularly sure what you're talking about in what you posted on my talk page, but if you had been paying any attention at all, you'd realize it wasn't MY knowledge I was posting but that written by someone else and inappropriately reverted by someone with a stick up their ass. Also, when you're going to post rude things on talk pages, don't use 'please'. Be rude or don't be rude, but forgo the passive-aggressive hybrids. Grindingteeth 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem like a very rude, but confused person to me. ••Briantist•• talk 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Most people are rude, yeah. Also, it's no wonder I'm confused what with the way you're responding to the same posts both on my talk page and mine. Love always, Grindingteeth 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU should have answered on your own talk page, rather than post abuse on mine. ••Briantist•• talk 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:And suddenley there came a bang.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:And suddenley there came a bang.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:And suddenley there came a bang 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:And suddenley there came a bang 2.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC One logos

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article BBC One logos, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. tgheretford (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The logos are covered textually in the BBC television idents anyway, so the BBC One logos article and the logos originally on the BBC One article are redundant. If any of the logos should go anywhere, it should be the BBC television ident article, as long as it stays within the WP:FAIR policy. --tgheretford (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. To your comments on the talk page of BBC One logos, you can endorse a prod by adding the {{Prod2}} template to the article page. Regards. --tgheretford (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to make you aware, the articles prod has been contested by an anonymous editor and has now been nominated for deletion as per WP:AfD. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC One logos --tgheretford (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert violation at the Gillian McKeith article

You seem to have violated the three-revert rule at the Gillian McKeith article. It would seem that your edits might also be violating WP:BLP. Please revert yourself immediately to avoid being blocked. ElinorD 10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the lead in accordance with WP:LEAD; those details are not first-sentence material, only a stage name or legally changed name goes there. Also, "passes herself off as" violates WP:NPOV unless it's a direct quote from a recognized expert. I trust the rewrite will promote working together to make this article better. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Brianist, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Gillian McKeith and have been blocked for 24 hours. The violation was aggravated by your continuing to revert after being reported and being asked to revert yourself. Please review the 3RR rule carefully so you can avoid violating it in future. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As you will know if you read the 3RR rule carefully then you will realise that restoring informaiton that has credible backup references does not voilate the rule, and removal of the same is vandalization. ••Briantist•• talk 09:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Time formatting

You made an edit saying "'pm' is the correct fully-blocked format for times on wikipedia, not 'p.m.'" but that's not what the Manual of Style says.

???? ••Briantist•• talk 09:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image policies

Brian, you're continuing to add an image that is in clear violation of our policies. Even if the image had been taken from McKeith's website, it would be in violation, but given that it's a Channel 4 image of her, the copyright issue is very clear, and it means we can't claim fair use under Wikipedia's rules. Now that we have a free-license one available, it's an even clearer violation. I'm having some trouble getting the new one to upload, but I'll sort out the technical issues soon, and then we'll have an image on the page, so please be patient. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was supplied the image by Channel 4's press office, it's not "off a website", it's been specifically provided on request to me for the purposes of publicity and is covered by the Wikipedia:Publicity photos ••Briantist•• talk 19:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We now have one that has been released, so we're not allowed to use a fair-use one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Where has it been "released" from? ••Briantist•• talk 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

McKeith

Hi it was Slim (admin) who explained the photo wasn't allowed:( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I just don't understand why Wikipedia:Publicity photos didn't apply before the other picture was obtained. Thanks ••Briantist•• talk 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ours is not to reason why:)Merkinsmum 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes... ••Briantist•• talk 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR again

Hi, Briantist. You've violated the three-revert rule again.

• 16:33, 12 February 2007
• 16:51, 12 February 2007
• 18:43, 12 February 2007
• 18:47, 12 February 2007

Please try to be more careful. I can understand that you felt there was a problem in the case of your third revert, since the image SlimVirgin added didn't seem to load properly at first, but you were repeatedly adding an image after being told that it was a policy violation, and, whether you agreed or not, it would have been more appropriate to have left the article without any image, and to have tried to reach a solution on the discussion page. ElinorD 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I read that Wikipedia:Publicity photos and understood to be allowed to use the image. I *did* post on the message page and no-one bothered to EXPLAIN that the policy was basically garbage and should be ignored. ••Briantist•• talk 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Publicity photos is not policy, or even a guideline. It even says that at the top of the page. Regardless, you had an administrator and others telling you that it wasn't allowed, and the article without your picture was not in some obviously damaged state that had to be corrected urgently. There are good reasons why blatant vandalism and BLP problems can be reverted without reference to the three-revert rule, as it can be problematic to leave an article in a vandalised state, or with negative unsourced information about a living person who might sue Wikipedia. But the lack of an image is not something that has to be urgently corrected. ElinorD 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The person did not make themselves known as an "administrator" nor did they post a reason for their changes or explain why the rule you are now quoting applied. ••Briantist•• talk 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But she blocked you a few days ago, so she must be an administrator. And she posted on the talk page, and she put "see talk" in her edit summary[1] for an edit that you reverted as vandalism. ElinorD 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I read her comment that accused me of "taking it from a website", whereas I actually got it from the Channel 4 press office. Damn, I thought she might actually read what I posted. Seems to me that SlimVirgin has a bit of a power complex and doesn't give even the slightest bit of a toss about being fair or have any form of input. It'a a bit sad, really. ••Briantist•• talk 06:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Image policy is complicated, and I don't fully understand it myself. But I do realise that since Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopaedia, we want everything in our articles to be able to be freely copied by others, and reused, and modified. So a copyrighted image may only be used under Fair Use if it would be impossible to get a free image. I was recently looking at the user page of someone who had reverted some vandalism, and I saw this quotation, where the founder of Wikipedia says "We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo."

The point I'm making, however, is that you seem to be in such a huge hurry to force your own version of the article. Obviously, if someone vandalises an article, in the sense of falsifying the information, replacing the page with an obscene word, etc., you don't and shouldn't wait to discuss it on the talk page, because it's urgent to restore the article to its unvandalised state. But there is no urgency in restoring an image that someone took out on the grounds of policy. Even if she's wrong, the article can survive without the image while discussion goes on. There is no urgency in restoring a quotation that you want to use. It's not like this. It won't harm Wikipedia's status if someone happens to read the article a moment later and your quotation isn't in it. That's why I'm asking you to stop reverting so forcefully, and in particular to stop using "rvv" as edit summaries when it's not vandalism. Thanks. ElinorD 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force "my version" of the article, I have used "rvv" when people have removed items with references and replaced them with unreferenced content. ••Briantist•• talk 11:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) If this was my view of this awful quack quack (as she is called on the Guardian website today) woman I would be much more foreful. She is a fraud, and if this was my website, I would say so, but it's not an I have therefore acted in a "disintested impartial" way and maintained a balance. It seems to me that someone who calls herself Slimsomthing is an administrator wishes (and presumably believes all the bullcrap) to defend this awful fraud and is using her elevated position to defend her, IMHO ••Briantist•• talk 11:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Media

Thanks for getting in touch. I removed your comment about the channels being removed in the Summer because, if you read the article correctly, it says they MAY be getting removed from the EPG. No-where does it say that this is confirmed. Negotiations are still going on. --AntL 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no way denying that it is possible that the channels will be leaving. But the point I'm making is that negotiations are still in progress.

From the first source you posted:

'IMPORTANT: We are aware of viewer concern about advertising on Sky channels that urge Virgin Media customers to complain to them about the possibility of losing certain Sky channels from their cable contracts.' --AntL 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC English Regions

Why are you peppering the BBC English Regions article with "citation needed" tags? Nothing I've added to the history section is particularly controversial and it is all derived from Asa Briggs's standard work on the subject, as is clearly indicated in the reference at the bottom.

The information about the separate regions is derived from the official BBC publication on the subject, as is also clearly indicated.

If you have better information from a different source, please feel free to add it, or to correct any information where you can show that other sources show that Briggs' history is wrong, but please don't simply deface existing reliably sourced content.

Are you planning to put a citation tag on every sentence on wikipedia that doesn't end with a Harvard footnote? Benzedrine Clown 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes!!! How about reading WP:REF? ••Briantist•• talk 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you ought to read it yourself. Perhaps the bit here which says "be careful not to overuse these tags".

WP:REF does not say every sentence should end with a footnote, it says information should come from reliable sources and should be cited. The information I added came from a reliable source and was cited. So your problem is?

You say I need to add more sources - well I can't cite sources I haven't used. The information came from the source cited. Are you saying that Asa Briggs' 5 volume history of the BBC isn't reliable?

If you have more sources, more information please add them. If you find anything there to be wrong please correct it (citing your better sources in turn), but don't just pointlessly deface reliably sourced content that's already there.

Benzedrine Clown 07:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. The only option if you won't cite sources is for the text to be deleted! ••Briantist•• talk 07:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting WP:REF is my opinion? Benzedrine Clown 07:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, just your lack of interest in it. It suggests you have no sources. If the whole text is taken from s single source, please use refs with the "name=" parameter. It's easy. I don't have your document, so it's not up to me to find references. If you do, just add them. Simple, eh? ••Briantist•• talk 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Dr Ben Goldacre on Gillian McKeith.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr Ben Goldacre on Gillian McKeith.ogg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mattbr³⁰ 10:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop revealing my hidden identity

As a representative of the Max Clifford Intelligent Design Foundation I must ask you to stop constantly revealing the identity of our agents... Seriously though, if you only cared to look around you would notice that most editors on that page are seasoned skeptics themselves. I simply prefer a more moderate, source-based page, and one that does not attack the subject at every point. The goal should be to give her some space, and then cite sources like the nutrition authorities and Ben Goldacre's column in the BMJ to refute her. Please do not assume that our readers are not complete morons that need to be told one thousand times that the subject is wrong. It is important that our criticism is well cited and accurately labeled, otherwise we are no better than the quacks we try to debunk! Assume that our readers are highly intelligent, and we need to provide them the most accurate criticism and most honest description of our sources! --Merzul 16:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stealth Tax

I just failed Stealth Tax's GA nomination. I know you've put a lot of work into it, and it shows. I feel there are NPOV problems though. I think it should not be too hard to fix. Feel free to renominate. --Selket ^Talk 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Another task switcher.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Another task switcher.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 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Fripp and Eno

A tag has been placed on Fripp and Eno, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Seinfreak37 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scud FM

The article Scud FM you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Scud FM for things needed to be addressed. Chrisfow 18:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Channel Four Television Corporation

Fursday has raised concerns about the creation of the Channel Four Television Corporation article within the edit summary of the Channel 4 history, regarding the same information being in both articles. They have made a request to merge the articles in five days (February 25). You may wish to comment on why you created the article at Talk:Channel 4, where all discussion on the proposed merger should go. As you are the article creator, I wish to bring this to your attention. --tgheretford (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Freeview article

Just to make you aware, you have preformed two reverts on the Freeview article within 24 hours. Just be careful reverting again, because if you revert again after the third time, you will violate the three revert rule and an administrator may block you for up to 24 hours. Please take your disagreements to the talk page. Thanks. --tgheretford (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

McKeith

Please see Talk:Gillian McKeith - regarding the imposition of two unjustified blocks for allegedly violating BLP. Jooler 13:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Arqiva and National Grid Wireless articles

Please see the discussion about your recent edits at Category talk:UK transmitter sites. TIA. Harumphy 19:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For your info, I've now referred the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Harumphy 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)