User talk:Thundernlightning

Hello. I have reverted your edit deleting the two historical sources I gave for Buckingham Palace. My reason for including these sources is that they massively amplify material that is on the official site and also contain much that isn't. In particular, they are interesting about the site itself and the Manor of Ebury. They deal with the ownership, transfers, architecture of the early houses - much that does not appear on the official site. They also have images that do not appear on the official site. They are important resources. As such, I would be grateful if you would please not delete them again. Many thanks. -- FClef (Talk) 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGW

Just wondering if you would like to comment at Talk:London Gatwick Airport#External links. Frelke 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry, I didn't realise i had removed that link... I had edited out something else, and that link must have been in the middle somewhere. I agree... it is a relavent link. Greenboxed 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels in lONDON.

you keep reverting a link to a commercial site, yet you are putting notes in saying that wiki isnt a directory, but you are infact condone it by adding this entry?

Please use tilds to sign your message. Being a commercial site isn't a reason to remove a link. That link was placed to credit the source of the table. The table was originally taken in its entirety from that website. Previous editors and myself have maintained that table and the credit. This is quite legitimate. Reference to a directory is to link every hotel straight to its main website. Clearly this would make it a directory and not a source of information. The correct way to address that would be to create a standalone page for the hotel and make it wikitable. Thundernlightning 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of wikipedia is to provide acurate user generated info, we are participating in this to allow wiki to have upto date relivent info, we do not enter rate info etc so no commercial gain, if you check the attached site and its traffic it is highly commercial. If you are talking about gradings etc you should be using the soure that actually sets the gardes in this case the AA, which you seem to deem as vandalism.

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS WITH 4 TILDS...PLEASE HELP KEEP IT THREADED BY REPLYING BELOW THE LAST POST

i never accused or suggested you were making any commercial gain......i said wiki has STATED it is NOT a directory....by linking all listed hotels to their www page it becomes a directory...you simply need to make a wiki page for the hotel...link the hotels in London section to that page..then link out from the dedicated hotels page to the actual www site........the AA is not the only organisation that rates hotels and so their list is does not cover them all..

also i think that link would be best placed under a section about hotel ratings..but that isnt london specific...i also dont see anyway to pull up a list of London 5 star hotels via that link? How would you use it that way?

http://www.theaa.com/travel/accommodation_restaurants_grading.html

Thundernlightning 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the aa link, so i have aked them if they have one to link to, but as stted you have other sources that rate hotels within the uk, who are they?

Karma1 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karmal

the AA, English Tourist Board and RAC all rate hotels. Of course not all hotels have been visited by these organisations and so no one list from a single organisation will ever be comprehensive. The other problem is their lists depend on distance from the centre of a point, so you cant bring up a list of exclusively London hotels, which today would be anything within the M25 although the current lists includes airport hotels outside this area. Thats another point for debate too. But the links would be well suited to a specific section on UK hotels and how they are rated. Many people are still unaware that many hotels quote self ratings.

Thundernlightning 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RAC stopped rating about 2 years ago, leaving the AA as the sole offical agency giving star ratings. I agree that not all hotels will have been visited but in the case of 5 star hotels this wont be the case. A,os with 5 stars I doubt they would get away with sel rating

Karma1 14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AA list 38 5 star hotels in London. One example http://www.courthouse-hotel.com Not listed on the AA website. Time limits me going hotel to hotel but clearly 38 rated hotels is lower than the number out there. You also have the problem of actually defining the London border, basically you cant. Thundernlightning 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

even more definitive is that the AA only rates hotels that pay to become a member of its scheme. Thus some chains such as the Hiltons or some individual hotels are simply not visited and remain self rated. So the AA is not a definitive guide to 5 star hotels and never will be. Thundernlightning 08:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels in London

Hi, was your last comment for me? --Chapultepec 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, thanks. --Chapultepec 10:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you reverted (a) the correct wikilink for the Great Western Hotel and (b) wrongly edited the early 18th-century Lanesborough House into "an early 19th-century address"? (You've also done the latter without looking at the inconsistent style and wrong syntax of your edit. Surely the history of Lanesborough House is adequately covered in St George's Hospital and does not need to be duplicated or misrepresented in this article. I have reverted both back to the previous version. Bjenks (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by wrong wikilink since my edit to revert back to the original station name points at the correct page. How much history should be represented for the Lanesborough is really a matter of opinion. We are not talking about huge amounts of duplication. Thundernlightning (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC):[reply]

I've no problem with what you've ended up doing--well done! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have justed add the Montcalm as a self rated 5 star hotel in London, what is the source (I cannot see this on their website) --Karma1 10:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi its on all the booking sites who get the information from the hotel directly. for example: http://www.laterooms.com/en/hotel-reservations/4326_montcalm-hotel-nikko-london-london.aspx Thundernlightning (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to www. londontown .com

I noticed you've been cleaning these up. FYI I've started a WT:SPAM discussion at "Possibly spam links to www.londontown.com" . I've notified Gonzo Baggins. - Pointillist (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link deletions

Hi,

I'm somewhat suprised that you've decided to delete such a large bulk of my contributions without first talking to me. It seems like the reasonable thing to do would be to first assume good faith and then query me in person.

The reason that I linked to the specific article your talking about is that after reading it I found it to contain useful information relevant to a number of different articles. You'll notice in my recent edits of The Killing Fields and Haing S Ngor I use the exact same quote from a 1985 issue of people magazine. Am I therefore spamming links to a magazine published 26 years ago? I used the londontown link to provide citations to multiple articles because I felt it provided relevant information and would be useful to those who read them, and surely that is the point of wikipedia? I haven't been contributing to wiki for that long, but feel somewhat deterred by the fact that users such as yourself delete entries that I've taken the trouble of posting without even bothering to talk to me first.

Gonzo Baggins (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i did post on your talk page. I do question your multiple links to londontown for minor references. As for reversing your edits, i only reversed one article on the hotels in london page, the others being the londontown links and not the information. The removed section was about hotels in London used in films, that would be an endless list of hundreds of hotels so i didnt see why you had selected a few with a link to londontown from them. Feel free to use the discussion page for more opinions. Thundernlightning (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels in London deletion

Greetings, Thundernlightning. Thank you for contacting me about the above edit and not just summarily reverting it. Good Wikipedia etiquette is always appreciated.

The content at issue was deleted as it did not fit under the heading of "Five-Star Hotels in London" as constituted. The Hotel Cecil was demolished in the 1930s, and thus fails to meet the definition/criterion of the heading (which lists existing London hotels rated with five stars). Two more enties concerned contentions that certain hotels will be five stars (if) and when they reopen. When they do, if they are, they may be added at that time. Next was a hodgepodge that was both inappropriate for a list and original research to boot. If there was a section on where hotels by star rating are found in London, and if it were appropriately cited, it might find a home, but not under the list at issue. Last was an uncited graffito about a potential tallest building in London possibly renting space to a hotel operator, which indeed fails to meet any criterion for entry on the list.

I recognize the explanation for my edit - "Section is 'List of Five Star Hotels in London'" may have struck you as cryptic; I hope now it is clear that it states the rational for deletion of each of the above entries. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Thundernlightning. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thundernlightning. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thundernlightning. 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]

Need to fix Fury lineal staus back to active

By definition, unless the lineal champion officially retires, he is active. In addition, the consensus #1 and #2 fighters never fought to replace him during his hiatus. Now that he has overcome his sickness, his status should be active. Davidjohnadams (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]