User talk:Londo06/Archive 14

Speedy deletion of Tom Haughey

A tag has been placed on Tom Haughey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ejay (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I did not knowingly violate the 3RR.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Userpage

I love your userpage! I hope to learn off some of the ideas that you've had developing it. Lympathy (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring the Wikipedia rules on verifiable information?

Will you please stop putting non-verifiable information in to the Saints article. The rules are clear and you are ignoring them. If you are going to include any other players then provide, as required by Wikipedia rules, the verifiable evidence.

If you are not happy with this then raise a dispute using the proper channels. I will continue removing such additions if they are placed in the article without verification. The rules are here for a reason.

I have challenged the information posted, if you wish to include it your job is to verify it to the level required by Wikipedia. If you are unable to do so then the information must not be included until such time that it is verifiable.

If you don't like it, raise a dispute with Wikipedia. Tobias-UK (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your message and NOTHING CHANGES. You clearly do not understand the WiKi rules regarding verifiable content. Irrespective of what you say in the your message to me today, the Saints official website confirm this player to be in the RESERVE TEAM - just look at the website. I am removing the players inclusion yet again. PROVIDE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE which in this case must be from the club. None of the so-called 'citations' make any mention the number 28 shirt - only that the player has trained with the first team - but not all the time.

Are you related to Dean? Is this why you insist in putting incorrect, false and misleading information in to the article? You even asked the question on Redvee - and they also told you that Dean has not yet been given a number. Not once have you given any verifiable information that confirms this player has been given the number 28 shirt. All that you have provided is second-hand comment indicating that the player has trained with the first team. It is YOU who is vandalising the content, it is YOU who are insisting that non-verifiable content is re-instated. I will continue to remove the names of all players who are not officially issued with numbers by the Club and where no credible verification is offered. If you are not happy, you know the dispute process here. The onus is on the editor to VERIFY the content he is including. I have posted the relevant part of the rules. Please just show me ONE reliable source that confirms Dean has been given the number 28 shirt. Tobias-UK (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the message you left on UserTalk. How on earth can you say the issue of whether Dean McGilvray can lay claim to the number 28 does not mean a great deal – absolute nonsense IT MEANS EVERYTHING - it is YOU who are INSISTING that he has been GIVEN the number 28 and keep on wrongly listing that his name in the FIRST TEAM squad list alongside the number 28 - HE HAS NOT been issued with a number! I cannot find (and nor have you provided) any evidence of that from any source and if he has not OFFICIALLY been given that number then it should not be included in the Article. Stupid, unverifiable editing such as yours is irresponsible and damages the efficacy of Wikipedia. Foolish, unwarranted 'threats' of the nature you posted in my UserTalk are silly and futile and do nothing to take matters further. The rules of Wikipedia are clear and unequivocal on this matter and I will repeat them here for you now so that you can digest them.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed....

... Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source....

... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source ..."

And with that I ask you yet again and for the umpteenth time - where is the verifiable evidence that Dean McGilvray has been issued with the number 28 shirt. The burden of proof is on YOU - now either put up or shut up. I have done absolutely nothing wrong in editing the information and I will do so again in 48 hours if you cannot or do not provide the verifiable evidence as required by the Wikipedia rules. It is editing such as yours that causes Wikipedia to lack the veracity it deserves - either the content is verified or it is removed. It really is that simple.

If you continue in this silly crusade to damage the quality and veracity of the information provided in Wikipedia then it will be you who will find himself without editing privileges. I will not let this matter rest until it is properly resolved. You do not have the right to place squad numbers on Saints (or any other) players or promote players to the first team on behalf of the Club. You clearly do not understand the legal processes and rules associated with off-field rugby league matters such as this.

The fact of the matter is there is no verifiable evidence available for one simple reason and that reason is the number 28 shirt has not yet been given to any player. If you look at the Saints website you will see the player is a member of the Reserve Team – that is unequivocal evidence, if you look at the first team listing on the official site his name does not appear on the first team list against any number. If you look in the match day programme, you will find that his name does not appear on the first team list. All that is unequivocal evidence that the information you continue to put in the article is WRONG. Now, who is guilty of vandalism? Who is guilty of posting unverifiable information? Who is guilty of breaching Wikipedia editing rules????

By all means raise this as a dispute – because that is what it is, but it is you who is damaging the veracity of the article, it is you who is taking away the efficacy of the information provided. Silly schoolboy threats have no place in Wikipedia, if you are going to edit articles and make threats then please make sure you understand and follow the rules of doing so.

You have 48 hours to provide the verifiable information with respect to (1) Dean has been officially issued with the number 28 shirt and (2) that Dean is a full member of the first team squad – and not just merely training with it from time to time.

If you are unable or unwilling to respond to my challenge of your edit I will remove the non-verifiable information and report you to the appropriate place. So, over to you – PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Tobias-UK (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Apollo_Perelini.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Apollo_Perelini.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, part of the problem is that permission to use on Wikipedia is in and off itself not sufficient. That is not a free license, if they gave permission to actualy release it under the GFDL license or whatever so that anyone can use the image for any purpose (including commercial) then that's fine, but if they only gave permission to use it on Wikipedia itself that's still considered a non-free license. See WP:COPYREQ for details on what kind of permission to ask for in these cases. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you still have a copy of the correspondence with them please also fire off a copy to the "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" adress mentioned on the WP:COPYREQ page, makes it all more verifiable if someone raise simmilar concerns later. Cheers. --Sherool (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]