User talk:Nick Cooper

Exok objects to the closure of the discussion about whether to split Jeremy Bamber into two articles — one about the murders and one a biography. He has requested that I make a formal proposal to split the articles on the talk page. I'm very sorry to ask this, but it would be appreciated if everyone who commented at the BLPN here could offer their opinion again at Talk:Jeremy_Bamber#Proposal_to_split_this_article_into_a_murders_article_and_a_biography. (Also, for some reason, that link isn't going directly to the subsection, so please scroll up a little to find it.) Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about this. I don't think I did know about the BBC's play. When you say the programme no longer exists, you mean it was lost or destroyed? Pity, if that's the case; I would have loved to try to track down a copy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

Thanks for uploading File:Peppa Bicycles.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article for 3 days. Please form consensus for the article title and scope on the article talk page. Once consensus is clear on both, use {{editrequest}} to ask for an admin to change it. Until then, don't leave any more messages on 89.100.*'s talk page, and don't start reverting on that article again when the protection expires. You've both used up your allotment of reverts on that article for a long time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Also, the IP's edits weren't vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Can I reiterate this? Do NOT call edits vandalism if they're not. If you are not aware of the "vandalism" means here, read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick and 89.100 – I would encourage both of you to refrain from further contentious discussion on Talk:List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland and allow the RFC to run its course. You both have made your positions clear, and repeatedly badgering each other or other editors with your positions is not productive. I moved the article back to its pre-RFC title and move protected it for 30 days. It is also edit protected. Additionally, I have sought input from the Olympic Wikiproject to resolve the 50 meter, Olympic sized and Olympic standard discussion. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick - of course the Talk page is not off-limits, but the repeated badgering every input that you disagree with (same applies to 89.100) is not productive. Allow the RFC to run its course, let others weigh-in without challenging their every word and see how this plays out. This is a 2-3 item list. It is inconsequential in the scheme of ~4M articles. Don't fall into a trap of contentious discussion, it never solves anything. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you contributed to the Cfr dicussion concerning Category Police brutality in England. If I read you correctly your reasons for maintaining the status quo seem to be a) Keep it because Police brutality exists as a phenomenon and b) Incidents are seen as police brutality, "in the eyes of the wider public" and c) It is a useful category.
My point in making the nomination was that labelling anything, whether by the police or anyone else, as "brutality" does not comply with Wikipedia's policy regarding NPOV. To put an article in that category the editor has to make the value judgement that the article is about an example of police brutality, whilst being neutral in our point of view suggests not labelling incidents in that way.
The point, therefore, is whether or not the label "brutality" is POV or not. If it is then we should change the name.
No one is denying that some people get injured by the police (we are not talking about deaths, they are covered under Category:Deaths in police custody). All we are saying is that when people get injured by the police it is not Wikipedia's policy to label those incidents as "brutality" because that is a subjective POV. Therefore, your three reasons do not address the central issue which is: Is calling it "brutality" POV or not? If it is, then we need to change the name.
In light of this, would you be prepared to review the discussion and your contribution to it? If you choose to reply, please do so on the page where the Cfr discussion is taking place. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 07:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I seem to recall that you commented on this issue before, and it has come up again, unfortunately during the police officer's trial.

• The lead currently begins: "Ian Tomlinson ... was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work ... The trial of PC Simon Harwood, a police officer accused of Tomlinson's manslaughter, opened on 18 June 2012 at Southwark Crown Court, and is expected to last up to five weeks."

• An anon wants to change this to: "Ian Tomlinson ... was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed on his way home from work ... The trial of PC Simon Harwood, a police officer accused of Tomlinson's manslaughter, opened on ..." etc (my emphasis).

There's a discussion here on the BLP noticeboard in case you have any interest in commenting. All the best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? You are not a sysop, rollbacker, reviewer, or autopatrolled user and you have edited more than Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). Get your permissions now! Adjkasi (discuss me) 10:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the article's talk page which may interest you regarding the wording of the beginning of the lead section. Please feel free to comment there. I won't be watching this page so if you want to leave a comment here please leave a {{talkback}} template on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you just made this edit [1] on the 7 July 2005 London bombings article. I have to say that I do have sympathy for the IP's edit here. I have not seen the programme in question so have no personal opinion on the matter. However whether or not it achieved its objective is clearly a matter of subjective opinion. Even if a signicant number of third party sources could be found which supported that claim, a proper neutral wording would be something like 'it was widely described in the media as having successfully debunked a number of the theories'. At present however we have a bald statement of fact with no third party sources at all. That undermines the credibility of the article, and WP. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beck Plaque.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) 11:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Falklands Play book.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Love Soup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that he is "widely judged amongst Britain's foremost television dramatists", which you have reinstated in this article, needs substantiating. Can you reference this? I acknowledge that SP has a big reputation, but I don't think it is enough simply to assert it.--Agarpp (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you reverted an edit I made to this article (deleting the section "Press coverage related to the Leveson Inquiry") without much explanation, just "deleted conspiracy theory nonsense". Have you got a fuller explanation? I don't believe the fact that you view (maybe rightly) the content of the press articles to be wrong is a justification. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, With over 12,000 wikiedits since 2006, you have earned the follow recognition. Cheers, and a Merry Christmas across the pond. Lance...LanceBarber (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you reverted my edit to Gun politics in the United Kingdom. I added handguns to the list of prohibited weapons, which they most certainly are under the Firearms Act. I'm sure your revert was in good faith and I've probably misunderstood something about the article structure, but I'd be grateful if you could let me know your reasoning. I will check here for your response so as to preserve the dialogue context. Best regards, --Ef80 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Prohibited weapons" list is for items that cannot be posessed under any circumstances. Some types of handguns are still legal, while there are specific exemptions for other types not generally allowable (e.g. a vet may possess a centre-fire handgun for the purposes of humane killing), so to place handguns as a whole in the list is misleading. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Surely the 5(1)(aba) prohibition of any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall prohibits all handguns? I'm not going to argue the toss over this though, and won't be taking it up on the article talk page. --Ef80 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The length restrictions do not apply to black powder/muzzle-loading pistols or revolvers, but even in the case of cartridge pistols, there are exemptions if it is a trophy of war, of historic interest, or used for starting races, humane killing or signaling. Smooth bore pistols chambered for .410 and 9mm cartridges are also exempt. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. --Ef80 (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited What the Butler Saw (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Cox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick Cooper, here I reverted this edit you made at Yangtse Incident, because your edit stopped the redirect from working. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Regards. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, please be sure you don't contribute to an edit war like what's been going at at Gun politics in the United Kingdom. You were just as close to the line as several others. This is just a courtesy notice, but please be wary of such behavior. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PG-12.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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) 04:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Declining a British honour may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 Woolwich attack may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my edit to H. G. Wells, on the basis that the term 'the leading charity' is likely a statement of fact rather than promotional as I had considered. It seems to me that such a term may be subjective and could be seen in the same light as terms such as 'the best' or 'the no. 1' etc., who has or would decide if Diabetes UK is the leading charity? Personally I think it is an imprecise term that would be difficult to attach factual basis to (though it is likely the most well known), and I'm not entirely sure it is necessary in the article anyway. Feel free to disagree however, after al there is just as much disagreement as there is agreement here at times. --wintonian ^talk 14:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Nick Cooper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

194.74.226.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Standards Unit". The reason given for Standards Unit's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully. Why can't I edit Wikipedia? Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy. Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. What can I do now? If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following: Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ".

• Blocking administrator: RHaworth (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: I have softened the block against Standards Unit. You should be able to edit now. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP block seems a very blunt instrument to use against an IP linked to a government organisation with around 4,000 staff! Nick Cooper (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we don't know where these users are coming from, so inadvertently inappropriate autoblocks are bound to occur. At least you don't get something like this nowadays... ;-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the wording of my comment. I should have put the offending words into inverted commas. I have responded on the talk page. I am Christian myself, and having studied Islam, I am continually horrified by the way Christians and Jews are represented, both in the Quran and common belief. So far, I have only read one Muslim cleric who has been prepared to acknowledge that Muslim teaching constitutes a blasphemy against Christianity.

Well, you'd better read my current mention of "the Book" and the so-called "Prophet Jesus" on the talk page. You will either be offended or you won't. Amandajm (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:H. G. Wells, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Television licensing in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "commregs" /><ref name="BBCMobilePhones" /> although such recordings may infringe [[copyright]]).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

This is vandalism. I have read The Dam Busters (book), and the dog is definitely called Nigger (because he was a black dog) and not "wikt:Sambo" which is another racial epithet that some anonymous troll decided to add to the talk page. Please do not feed the trolls.

Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Kraken Wakes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Chrysalids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jenny Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit the article for content because I want to be able to act administratively if warranted. However, I suggest you look again at the material added by the other editor to the lead that you have since moved to the body. I looked at it briefly earlier. Although it's possible I misread it, I believe the report was completed in 2006, which makes it kind of tough to have commissioned it in 2012.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or restore to Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to Forbidden Planet (bookstore). Regarding the comment you made in your edit summary, claims such as the one in question need to be accompanied by citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, et al.. It is not the responsibility of editors and admins who uphold those policies like myself to falsify the claims you wish to add to articles. As a veteran editors of close to 13,000 edits since 2006, you should know this. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive efforts to restructure the page. Activist (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bombing of Barcelona may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• He reported that the bombers had glided in at high altitude to avoid being detected by the [[Acoustic location#Military use|acoustic] and electro-magnetic means of detection available at the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Mayfair 11 12.JPG. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heaven (nightclub) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• g-a-y-from-hmv-administrators/] ''Pink News'': Jeremy Joseph buys G-A-Y from HMV administrators]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this, I see now I didn't scroll down far enough. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a stub about the Disappearance of Jayden Parkinson. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Copa Airlines Flight 201 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (BBC TV series)|Horizon]]'' series as ''Air Crash - The Deadly Puzzle'' on 14 February 1994.<ref>[http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/506127[</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Niels Bohr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horizon (TV series)

Werner Heisenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horizon (TV series)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theodor Plievier, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NDR and Ullrich Haupt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on your recent edits? The citation simply indicates that crime statistics and their calculation does not show the full story. It's well documented that gun crime in the UK increased in the years following legislation in 1997. Stephenjh (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dansette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radiogram (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add you source(s) for the format of the surviving episodes, presumably the "Kaleidoscope" guide.

I have also worked on the [[Play of the Month article recently which probably could also do with some fine tuning as regards the survival issue. Philip Cross (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "self evident"? It's an exceptional claim, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's "self evident" because no b/w episodes were shown on BBC1 after 1969. All the repeats on that channel were colour episodes, and any repeats of b/w episodes were on BBC2. The Planet of the Daleks episode was so exceptional that the mini-documentary preceeding it - about archive recoveries - was designed to explain exactly why BBC1 was showing a b/w programme in primetime. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not self evidence. What is your source that says that no b/w episodes were shown on BBC1 after 1969, and that all the repeats on that channel were colour episodes? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted it from your own page. You are, of course, welcome to identify a b/w story/episode on that list being repeated on BBC1 before 1993. The reality is that there were hardly any terrestrial repeats, so deducing that PotD#3 was the first b/w one since 1969 is hardly rocket science. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this - I only deleted it because I moved what I assumed was the whole post here, in order to avoid fragmented discussion. That page only gives the channel for some of the repeats, not all; it also fails WP:SPS. Rocket science or not, making deductions which cannot be supported by reliable sources is a WP:NOR violation. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but are you disputing that that is a complete list of UK terrestrial repeats, or that it is clear which channels each story was shown on? You are, of course, welcome to identify which b/w story you think was shown on BBC1. This page also shows that no b/w episodes or stories were repeated on BBC1 before 1993. The only b/w repeats after 1969 and before 1993 were An Unearthly Child, The Krotons, The Time Meddler, and The Mind Robber, all on BBC2. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallifreybase also fails WP:SPS. Verifiability and No original research are core policies. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for you to ID the b/w story/episode shown on BBC1 between 1969 and 1993. I'll not hold my breath. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my WP:BURDEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. Terrestrial repeats were incredibly sparse. Only four b/w stories were repeated between 1969 and 1993, all on BBC2, not BBC1. The GB page confirms it, and you have no evidence that it is inaccurate or omits anything. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which you obviously haven't read. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." In other words, if you want to add the material, it is your job to prove it, not someone else's job to disprove it. G S Palmer (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it, someone else did. You've also been presented with two separate webpages showing the same information, i.e. only four b/w stories plus the pilot episode repeated between 1969 and 1993, all of them on BBC2, not BBC1. Do you think two completely separate sources would just make up the exact same information? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't prove anything. One could easily be mirroring the other. G S Palmer (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shows that the number of terrestrial repeats between 1969 and 1993 before the one in question was actually very small - only 47 titles in fact - and not hard to document. Working out that 42 were all colour, and that none of the remainign five were shown on BBC1 is as easy as 47-42-5=0. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just wondering whether this was meant to read "support" or whether it was meant as humour. Scolaire (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of those days.... Nick Cooper (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nick, for finding a better way of putting the "dominance" aspect in the RNLI article. I am neutral on the topic, but found it difficult to write it in a neutral way. Cheers... Tony Holkham (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've un-done a number of wedding anniversary changes to revert to a very old edition of pears. Search inside http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pears-Cyclopaedia-2011-2012-Chris-Cook/dp/1846143756/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1401133154&sr=8-4&keywords=pears+cyclopedia for "wedding anniversary", matches the edit's you're undone. It looks like they've changed their mind, but if both this and debretts are saying this is correct, surely the page should reference the current british, not only a 1960's-1970's view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.244.48 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at The Discontinuity Guide. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michael Standing (actor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1986-07-16/news/mn-19680_1_quickie-divorce Quickie Divorce Costs Spillane's Ex 'Hammer' Profits]]</ref><ref>''AP News'': [http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1986/Writer-s-Ex-Out-To-Take-Him-To-the-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. Thanks for your edit to this article, but do you have a reliable source for changing the date back to the 12th? The article has stated 10th since it was created in 2005, presumably taking the info from IMDB.  —SMALLJIM  09:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Radio Times for 11-17 September 1993. 10:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your work on the MDMA page is much appreciated! Could you please help with reverting most of recently deleted history and harm assessment info? Tova Hella (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick Cooper,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keith Allen (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Allen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it should be renamed Porte de Vincennes siege, and have left a message here. I'm not sure how we would unrevert the reversion. (I'd rather avoid commenting on the article talkpage.)Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I marked the IMDB reference as 'failed verification' is that while it does confirm the program existed, it does not confirm the contents of the program, a transcript of the program would confirm that.

Graham1973 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graham1973, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says a programme can only be cited as a reference an available transcript, any more than the text of a obscure book needs to be online somewhere before it can be referenced. Such a citation can only fail verification if someone views a programme (or reads a copy of the book, etc.) and determines that it does not show or say what the citation suggests it does. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Simon Templar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ** ''[[Fear in Fun Park]]'', ak.a. ''The Saint in Australia'') (14 July 1990, postponed from 16 September 1989 & 7 July 1990)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BranStark. Your recent edit to the page April 2015 Mediterranean Sea migrant shipwrecks appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — BranStark (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, please watch "With Love From Adolf" again. I believe that although a case could be made for a conscripted laborer having left, the note was in fact left by Ivor Rodgers, as I said. Here is my line of reasoning to support my hypothesis.

1. It was established that the bomb in question was dropped on November 5, 1940, at the start of the Blitz. That date is relevant because ...

2. At that time, the Nazis were not employing a lot of forced labor in their factories, and certainly not their munitions factories.

3. At that time, the Germans saw themselves as winning the war. They had overrun all of Western Europe except Britain, and the German people were convinced Der Fuehrer would conquer England as soon as the Luftwaffe finished bombing it flat. If a German worker had left that note, it would be more likely to say, "With Love From Der Fuehrer." The German people used that title the same way the wizarding world refers to Lord Voldemort as "the Dark Lord." It had the effect of reinforcing his demigod status with the population.

4. After Ivor sends Brian off to defuse the Hermann, he phones Susan to inform her of the fact that he'd sent Brian out on a job and "One way or another, soon we'll know." He and Brian have served together for the best part of four years. He knows him. He also knows (as do we viewers) that Brian wants to remain with 97 Company as a bomb disposal officer. BDOs are rare birds, and ones with Brian's experience -- remember Ivor, back when he was a first lieutenant, commenting that the average life expectancy of a bomb disposal officer was on the order of 10 weeks? -- are rarer still. No commanding officer wants to lose his best people, much less lose them to a nothing assignment. His sending Brian out is a combination of "getting him back on the horse" to see if he's lost his nerve, and coming up evidence and with an argument he can make to Group to keep Brian where he is. (As Ivor was plainly grooming Brian for command when he was injured in "The Pier," he may want him as his XO, with an eye toward either taking over 97 Company when he himself is promoted or getting him a company of his own. But I am going afield.)

5. When Brian shows Ivor the note, Ivor does not look surprised. Amused, yes; surprised, no. In fact, Ivor looks rather like a schoolboy caught playing a prank. If he were seeing the note for the first time, he'd have been at least startled. Ivor's reaction is key to my argument.

6. Finally, there is the note itself. It is written on a piece of cigarette paper. This is relevant.

A. In Germany in 1940, things were not so bad that the civilians had to roll their own smokes. Cigarettes were still available. The military had first call on tobacco products, but the German cigarette factories were still making cigs from domestic, Turkish, and Russian tobacco. Plus which, in 1940 America was neutral. Tilted British, true, but neutral. We were still exporting cigarettes and pipe tobacco, and such products, carried in neutral ships under, say, the Spanish or Swedish flags could have delivered cigarettes literally by the boatload. Things would not get bad enough on the German home front that smokers had to roll their own coffin nails for another couple of years.

B. However, in England it was another story. The British government being more concerned with importing war materiel, did not allocate a high shipping priority to tobacco in 1940. What was imported was raw tobacco, not finished product. Oh, some cigarettes made it to market, but they were manufactured in England, not imported from America. And remember how poorly British "other ranks" were paid. They had to roll their own. If you study LCpl Wilkins, you will notice that when he is shown smoking his butts look a lot more like joints than like machine made cigarettes. (And by all reports, the Brits stretched their tobacco by adding things like chopped hay to the mix, but that's not important.) We can infer from that look that Wilkins is rolling his own. This in turn means cigarette papers were available in the NAAFI store and/or at the tobacconists. Cigarette paper being very thin, it would be less likely to interfere with the threads in the gaine, meaning Ivor would have been able to put it in place where it would be found by Brian with little difficulty.

C. And there is this. That bomb has been sitting in the ground for four years. If that note had been put in the fuse by a German, the folds would have had four years to set. They would be impressed into the paper.But the note is smooth. Thus, it could not have been sitting in the gaine for very long.

These six facts lead me to the conclusion that it was Major Ivor Rodgers who hid that note, not a patriotic German munitions worker.

I believe that you were mistaken in reverting my edit, and I request that you reconsider.

Roy Jaruk (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Murder of Anni Dewani. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]

The discussion has been opened. I think it is a pretty clear case. Should be cleared up quite fast as the accusation of the article being biased need to be proved by user bringing this up. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to comment on the re-opened discussion at the same page. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lane99. You might want to comment.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited An Inspector Calls, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Russell, Dorothy Smith and Edward Chapman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rogue Male (1976 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicholas Ball. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you reverted my edit :) What's your rationale? The references to dramatisations are on almost every "air disaster" page on Wikipedia, and aren't encyclopedic. It makes them read like television guide or an advertisement. There's nothing wrong with citing them in the references, but they don't deserve an entire section or paragraph. --Rhombus (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2015 (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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick Cooper. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I saw your edit adding some popular culture trivia. This might be a good material for some other wiki, like http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheDayOfTheTriffids — Preceding unsigned comment added by TvojaStara (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, just wanted to say I'm glad you're taking improving that article section seriously. Too often people are content to let trivia lists languish and clutter up articles. It's happened before in that article, discussed on its talk page. I hope you understand I'm not some vandal going around deleting things willy nilly. I absolutely agree that per WP:MOS and WP:TRIVIA, yes, it is better to turn a list like that into a paragraph or two, though removing anything that is just trivia; it looks like you're best placed to do that in terms of motivation and, I hope, time and resources. It's an important piece in sf and it deserves a better assessment of its impact than it currently has. I wish you well and all the best with that project. Thanks, ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC) 22:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited T. E. Lawrence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Clements. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have trawled all the V2000 models and can find none that fully support SECAM. The most popular models in France were VR2022 and VR2220 (the portable machine). Both were only ever produced in PAL versions. I found an old French advert for the latter machine which states that the machine is "comportait un circuit imprimé pour transposé le SECAM en PAL" which basically means 'supplied with a transcoder'. It is not clear how the SECAM was recorded from the tuner, unless the transcoder did its transcoding before recording. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen your recent edits. What I don't see is your evidence. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked it seems that the two models in question recorded in PAL from SECAM sources. If you Google "VR2025" and "SECAM" there are plenty of sources stating it is a dual-standard (or rather dual-tuner) machines, and the same for the VR2026, although inevitably few are in English. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was not able to dig up much, but I was able to discover that the VR2025 and the recorder part of the VR2220 were able to accept SECAM into their SCART inputs. This means that the SECAM to PAL transcoder must be in the recorder part of the recorder/tuner pair. I was not able to discover if the recorder transcoded the PAL recording back to SECAM, though as none of the the S-VHS and Hi8 units released in the late 1980's had any SECAM capability at all would suggest that TV sets capable of displaying PAL video signals were well established in SECAM countries by this time. In any case, external PAL to SECAM transcoders were readily available by this time. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all TV sets sold in France were dual SECAM/PAL, and that was certainly my experience staying in avrious hotels in 1999 & 2000 and being able to play back PAL camcorder footage I'd been shooting at the time. It could have been that the VCR transcoded SECAM to PAL for recording, and then PAL back to SECAM for playback, but the latter was probably not actually needed. IIRC, there was no separate PAL or SECAM S-VHS, but rather S-VHS 625, a common recording standard regardless of the signal input. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By 2000, virtually every TV set sold was able to display PAL, SECAM and NTSC (not to mention PAL-M and PAL60). This was because they all used standard colour decoder chips that were capable of interpreting all of the colour standards. But in 1988, this was not yet necessarily the case, but TV sets sold in France (and most other SECAM areas) by now included a PAL colour decoder circuit (though rarely a tuner unit capable of receiving PAL broadcasts). The actual recording on S-VHS tape (and Hi-8) was encoded in PAL in the 625 line versions. SECAM had to be converted (transcoded) to PAL for recording if not already in PAL (i.e. in a camcorder). Replay could either replay the PAL directly on a compatible TV or be transcoded back to SECAM (usually with a third party transcoder). 86.149.141.166 (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Killing Hitler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keith Allen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rogue Male (1976 TV film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rogue Male. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Would you be interested in looking at my creation Murder of Kylie Maybury and possibly helping me expand it? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, by your logic on putting warnings in on british law, then it would have to be extended to every other country. Should each talk page have 100+ warning boxes? Or are you claiming the Brits need special exemption?Varith (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues involved. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Recently, you reverted changes to The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans, saying, “so tag it.” There are three issues with this: First, the section was tagged, and has been for almost a year and a half, yet the problem persists. Second, the removal was supported by two editors ([2][3] for identical reasons. Third, in cases of disagreement, it’s best to hew closer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which in this case I’ve explained on the article Talk page. And if there was a “baby with the bath water,” it’s easily retrievable from the edit history, so no worries there. Take care. If you wish to reply to me for any reason, please notify me on my Talk page. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D-Day Daily Telegraph crossword security alarm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Reid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Secret Agent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Rogers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Camden Town tube station. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that two different editors have reverted your recent addition to the abovementioned article. Your repeated reversion of the removal without even posting an explanation in the edit summary, amounts to edit warring. Please engage with editors about the issue, preferrably on the article's talk page. Instead of removing it again I have tagged the section as unsourced, please co-operate with other contributors to solve the issue. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an explanation in my edit summary of 4 November. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick Cooper. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I saw your comments on the Sherlock talk page and wondered why UK tv co-productions are listed as 'british-american' but the reverse (where American tv shows have British production credits) are described as 'American'? Surely an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should promote conformity acrosd tgrir articles? DNA Cowboy (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC) DNA Cowboy (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, i noticed there is no conformity on wikipedia when it comes to 'British-American' tv series. The British productions are described as 'British-American' when they have even the slightest US involvement but when the situation is reversed we see no such policy, instead they are listed only as 'American'. With this in mind is there any way a user can arrange a specfic policy adhered to by all editors? The reason I ask is that I have read your comments on the Sherlock article. DNA Cowboy (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC) DNA Cowboy (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1990 (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brain Drain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick Cooper. 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]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nick Cooper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Yesterday I reverted an edit of User:John's on Janet Street-Porter (JSP) which removed a large amount of content on the grounds of "tabloid" sourcing. I noted in my edit summary that not all the sources deleted were "tabloid." In response John reverted my edit and issued spurious warnings on my talk page. I then reinstated a single section from the previous material removed from the JSP page, about controversy over the subject's comments in a Daily Mail article. Accordingly, the first cite was to the article itself on the Daily Mail website, with all other cites being from the likes of the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, and the BBC. In response John reverted my edit, and blocked me. I believe that John has abused their administrator privileges to "punish" me for disagreeing with their own edits, and that as they were personally involved in the editing in question, they should not have imposed this block themselves. I would suggest that this should be investigated as a matter of urgency. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - block has expired. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DoRD - Is there a point to appealing to a block if nobody addresses it until after it has expired? Is there any point in complaining about the original Admin's abusive behaviour? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick Cooper. 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]

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of Peppa Pig episodes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 14:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vote going on at talk:List of terrorist incidents in London#Suffragettes to decide on the outcome of a long discussion of which you were an integral part, so you may want to cast your vote. Delayed Laugh (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coded Hostile, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Keith Edwards and Cliff Taylor. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you find my edits too large to be done without discussing. If you have any questions left, please ask. Please respect the time if have spend to edit the page and see if you can accept my edits now. My intent is to make this page easier to read as requested by header since 2018.217.121.17.136 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick,

I am an Old Collegian (Tranby School now) and was quite intrigued some years ago when I found your allegations of faked lineage. I must question part of what you said:

c.1330 - Hull Grammar School founded 1988 - name changed to William Gee School for Boys 2001 - name changed to Endeavour High School 2005 - closed 

Was that last year a typo? When I read Endeavour High School's own page and the citations from it the closure is clearly shown to have taken place in 2015 not 2005. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robin. Yeah, you're right, it should be 2015 for that bit - 2005 was the year the Hull Grammar School ver 2.0 merged with the Hull High School. I haven't lived in Hull since 1984 (although will be moving back in a few years, and still have relatives in the city), so I hadn't noticed the more recent name change. Funnily enough, I seem to recall that the old High School was often referred to colloquially as "Tranby Croft" back in the day. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seretse Khama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Motswana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shoot the chute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dial 999.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]