User talk:Uncantabrigian

Hi - I've just moved Conservative Party (UK) back to that page (probably causing a million broken links and dounle redirects). I think it's probably best off there as the official title is the "Conservative Party", and the (UK) is only appended to distinguish it from the Danish etc variants. Probably remiss of me not to explain that on the talk page but don't think "Conservative Party UK" was the right place for the page. Uncantabrigian 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The page move was designed to make the page easier to find. :S It is disappointing to find that the article you are looking for does not exist when you search for it. Reason why?? Because the brackets, the apostrophes, the accents, and other diacritical remarks, (all of why may be typed, if you have a regular keyboard, and know the combination; I usually use a laptop, so the keyboard is somewhat limited), prevent your article from coming up on the screen...
  • That's not to say I disapprove of the reason why you moved the article, but the Wiki search engine makes life very hard indeed, especially when looking for British articles. If they don't show up immediately, they often don't show up at all, or only on page 10 of a v., v. long search. I'd rather not need to make a v. long search for the articles I want.
• Besides, I thought the name of the party was the Conservative and Unionist Party?? (RM21 20:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Hi - yes it is the "Conservative and Unionist Party" but (I assume you're British?) clearly its name is, effectively, the "Conservative Party". While omitting the brackets may make it a bit more difficult to find, it gives the misleading impression that the Party is actually called "Conservative Party UK", which it isn't. Also with the brackets is consistent with Labour Party (UK).

• • I think if you're having difficulty finding it, it's best to search for Conservative Party, then click the link one up from the bottom. Uncantabrigian 21:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am <:P>. I know what you're trying to say: if this was a printed book, then all articles would be expected to comply with grammatical conventions; certainly the name of the party at home is the Conservative Party. The only differentiation made is where there are other parties, as in an international context.

• However, I think an aim of Wiki should be to make information as easy to find as possible, particularly non-American content. Also, when you are writing/creating links from articles (e.g. the Conservatives privatised this, this, and this...), it easier to build links to 'Conservative Party UK', rather than a more grammatically correct alternative. (RM21 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• The images have been removed per terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. You are not permitted to have images tagged with fair use tags as Image:Oxfordcrest.png, Image:Keble.jpg, and Image:Warwickarms.JPG are. Please do not reinsert these images, nor any other fair use images, onto your userpage. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 12:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I removed Image:Keble.jpg, Image:Warwickarms.JPG and Image:Oxfordcrest.png from your userpage because the first two are tagged with {{coatofarms}} and the third is tagged with {{logo}}. In the case of the first two, that tag does not sufficiently state what the copyright status of the image is and as a result fair use must be presumed as the case for how the image is to be used on Wikipedia. As such, the images are not permitted to be used outside of the main article namespace. In the case of the third image tagged with {{logo}}, that tag is a fair use tag and again use outside of the main article namespace is prohibited. Hope this helps, --Durin 21:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Four times now [1][2][3][4] fair use images that were violating Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 have been removed from your userpage. Four times you have re-inserted the images [5][6][7][8]. You've been told before that this use of images violates our policies. I am hereby placing you on final warning regarding this; do not re-insert the images or any other fair use tagged images onto your userpage again or you will be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about this, but re-inserting the images is not an option. Thank you. --Durin 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the recreation of the article on Bromley byelection loser Ben Abbotts. I've now deleted it. The way to mark a recreated article for deletion is to add the {{Db-repost}} template to the top of the article, rather than going back to the AfD debate. David | Talk 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (A Cantabrigian)[reply]

Oh, lol, I didn't know it was you who edited your userpage. It was your IP address. —The-thing (Talk) (Stuff I did) 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image you uploaded, Image:Nunbedarms.JPG, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Portrait-garyridley-2007.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Portrait-garyridley-2007.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Portrait-garyridley-2007.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Antidope3.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. Kelly ^hi! 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block is for anonymous accounts only. The very fact that you posted on my talk page shows that you are not affected by the block, once you are logged in. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has indicated that the IP range in question has, unfortunately, been abused by serial puppeteer(s), so a block was deemed appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:London2000mayorresults.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Gary Ridley (politician), an article that 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/Gary Ridley (politician). 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wintonian (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clearly reference your articles? Ironholds (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uncantabrigian. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 21:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:London-mayoral-2000-by-gla-constituency.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your talk page comment on the Threads page. I've found a recent criticism of Threads but the user Nick Cooper continues to delete the addition. here's the Criticism of the movie- http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1001/bartlett.htm Despite the authors personal liking of the movie and having many positive things to say about it, they also note that - impressing us with the horror of the impending end of the world by nuclear warfare is no guarantee that our being so impressed will produce a desire in us to help "save" ourselves, let alone "save the world" from nuclear weapons. Inasmuch as the esthetic of Threads elicits serious horror, it creates the side-effect of serious despair, a despair that inhibits ethical conduct and invites fatalism--ironically, the fatalism one would expect its makers not to wish having created. More than any nuclear warfare movie, Threads risks destroying our faith in human agency by insisting on the "unrelievedly bleak" & the viewer might feel propelled to supplement Hines and Jackson’s Threads with the possibility for hope it obliterates in its obliteration of civilized Sheffield and its natural ecology. Otherwise, the film’s horror has no ethical import, and its effect might amount to the pornography of violence wearing the mask of anti-nuclear "awareness."

& due to your comment on the talk page, I thought you might be interested in this- The 2010 paper by Melissa Smith -Architects of Armageddon: the Home Office Scientific Advisers- detailed research programmes lay behind the much-mocked government civil defence pamphlets of the 1950s and 1960s You'd probably like to give it a read? Don't have free access to the paper myself but if you do let me know if it mentions 'Threads'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 May 2012 (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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uncantabrigian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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