User talk:Hayday

Your article

High Wycombe is my old town, I went to the RGS amongst other things. What exactly happened to your article. You look notable enough to me, perhaps I could try posting it myself that way it wouldn't be vanity or a candidate for speedy deletion though it is very important to follow the NPOV guidelines in terms of style so the article would have to be rewritten from what is on yuor user page with that in mind but let me know what you think. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox Wow it’s a small world! - I live on the same road as the RGS (Hamilton Road!) I wasn't lucky enough to go there (I went to one of the rough schools!!)But its got a really good reputation. I would be delighted if you could use the same profile that I have now under my user name on the main pages (or change it as you see fit) I originally put it straight onto Wikipedia before reading the rules.

o)

Hayday 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Darren Hayday, SqueakBox 23:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As your article was deleted with an Afd not a speedy (ie people voted on it) I think it would be a candidate for speedy deletion if it was creatred again right now. What I suggest is that we wait at least until after the election (I am assuming you are up for election). See Talk:Darren Hayday and the response of another editor to my suggestion on the article re-creation. I certainly haven't forgotten you but after 18 monthsw on this project i know who will be sensitive about this issue of your article and so I propose a little patience. One of my brothers is also standing in Harrow, so if you are up for election the best of luck to you and if you are re-elected I propose to re-create the article on you and see what happens. Okay? SqueakBox 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi SqueakBox,

There’s no rush, I'm not standing for an election till 2007 (or even 2008 if its decided to change Wycombe District Council into a Unitary Council) - it would just be nice to have a presence again after failing to read the rules. My article was only nominated for deletion because of mistaken identity over my shared IP address. I made up with the original guy that I had a misunderstanding with. I’ve decide that I’m not going to make any more contributions in here for a while, especially taking the time to read the rule book further.

Hayday 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics etc and Wikipedia

Thanks for that too! You have things to say and you want them said; but the best way to put it over is to be as diplomatic as possible. In fact the more guarded the language you use, the stronger the point you can make. Think about it.... All the best Marcus22 13:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Marcus! Hayday 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Henry Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Dalling and Bulwer

Thank you for your interest in adding information to Henry Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Dalling and Bulwer, however wikipedia does not permit copyright violations - the large 'copy and paste' of text from other sources, and also requires that text is properly wikified, with links to related articles, etc. It would be appreciated if you would follow these standard guidelines, citing sources were appropriate. --Vamp:Willow 11:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear VampWillow,

I was only trying to help build the site. I'm not sure if I'm going to bother anymore.

Hayday 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox

Hi. I noticed your query on Squeakbox's talk page. Unfortunately Squeakbox got into a dispute recently, you can see the details of said dispute in his edit history within his page. Soon after this, he deleted his page content and hasn't been heard from since - he MAY have a new alias, though it is difficult to ascertain how to find it out short of him kindly informing us. I would suggest asking one of the more tech savvy admins in terms of advice - specify whether you mean a page within Wikipedia, or a website without. -- D-Katana 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Its all sorted now! - thank you for letting me know.

Hayday 07:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Slander

Please stop adding uninformative personal attacks to articles pages. Your comments on for example Ian Mccartney today - "extremely overweight" is presumably offensive to him and uninformative to the rest of us. If you have a figure, then put that in. This is an encyclopedia structure, not a blog. Similarly from your comments on Margaret Beckett's talk page; both commenting on someone's appearance and stereotyping a political party with "interesting facial features". It's completely irrelevant to politics, and your dislike of the article's subject does not justify an irrelevant and irreverent comment for the rest of us to see. If you dislike her, then dislike her. It's not something that works on an encyclopedia page.

I remember I put you up for RFI before, when you were making various significant edits to a series of MP's pages, marking them as minor while changing significant amounts of body text. I think an admin stepped in and helped out, and you apologised for not having realised about the existence of various editing rules and guidelines of wikipedia. However since then I have come across various edits of yours again, and several times seen your edits reverted and subsequent apologies for not understanding those rules in a different way.

A skim of your contributions points out that you bias your edits heavily. People you don't like have their articles edited to show them in a bad light; this extends to the slander I started this comment off with. It's not relevant. An encyclopedia is a place for clear stated facts and to leave the reader to come up with their own views. It is not a newspaper or a blog or other reporting mechanism, for the spreading of users' views on others; while looking at your earlier contributions, I came across the version of your article page that was called for deletion and moved to your user page. I suspect the only thing that prevented it from being left as a good articles was that it was more in the style of a biography than an article; on almost every article about a person here, the article is about their achievements and notability rather than their background, hobbies and relatives. Of course there will always be a blur and the argument that follows about what's considered notable and what's not, so there will always be examples that some people find notable and others not.

Several of your edits have the potential to be terrific, adding informative contributions - but because they are tainted by the bias of immersion, they are reverted. Since you seem to near-exclusively make edits on topics from a part of the world you are immersed in, you have a very subjective viewpoint - which simply doesn't fit with the way Wikipedia works. That's seen broadly across many users; it's always difficult to provide an objective viewpoint when you're too close to something; the origin of the phrase "can't see the wood for the trees". I bet that any edits you made about your non-political interests, hobbies and so on would be informative, because you have proved that you're trying to provide comprehensive and useful information. For example, your edits to the page on Bulwer-Lytton expanded the article hugely - unfortunately that came up against copyright law and was reverted (The first line below the edit box states "Content must not violate any copyright and..."), but from your response higher up this page, if you hadn't been put off by that reversion you would have continued to make useful edits to similar article. That's hugely appreciated and fully in the spirit of wikipedia, your only stumbling blocks are the rules and guidelines that have had to be put into place to prevent edit wars by conflicting opinion, or avoiding the infringement of Wikipedia on the copyrights of others.

Granted, there's a lot of rules around, and immersion in a subject area and contact with people you edit the information of makes it very difficult not to include that bias. I realised that your talk page never included a proper welcome; the usual template, including links to the major rules, is available at Template:Welcome. A couple of those will be redundant by now, such as How To Write A Page; hopefully some of the others might be more useful and will allow you to structure your contributions in a way that will not cause reversion.

I appreciate that you are trying to contribute to a useful resource, and hope that you can appreciate that many of the rest of us have been through similar processes and would like to see those contributions and help you make them in a way that does not cause reversion or edits. Hopefully a better understanding of the rules will help, and I hope that you can consider understand the need to take more care with edits on subjects you are close to. --User:Firien § 15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits 18/19 May

I'm stunned. This is fantastic - there's a huge amount of information going in here; a quick skim just to check shows it's not copyvio too. I don't know anything about the subjects so can only hope that evil streak of yours isn't putting in errant stuff too ;-)

From the work that looks like it's gone into it, this looks great though - the only thing left is to bring it into line with the Manual of Style; this is mostly for wikification of the text you've put in. Relevant links on text are made by using double square brackets - so [[word]] becomes word. If you link to something that isn't there yet, then it'll just come up as a redlink and is automatically added to the requested-pages page, and invites people who read and are interested in the article to make their own contributions. Also for references, use <ref>Reference information</ref> which puts a linked ¹ or ² whatever the relevant number is in, and adds the information in a new section automatically; there's a few other ways to do this too. I find it useful when I'm trying to remember the technical links on how to do things to open up a random Featured Article in a new tab - these articles tend to have great numbers of example since they've been collaborated up to the highest standard of wikipedia; looking at the page for the template for how the sections go, and looking into the edit (without making an edit) to see how things are done. By copying the style from elsewhere, I know I'm doing it right!

The only other thing is your edit to Francis Baring - while putting a lot of information in, you also lost some standardisation on other relevant information (seen in red on the left) such as the days of birth and death, which are now more spread through the article. For a long article like that one, it's worth having a sharp synopsis of the major points of notability at the top, and the more detailed information through the article; your edit is pretty close, but including the date of birth and death in the first few words seems standard (though I can't honestly say why other than tradition). Lineage is probably more suitable lower in the page than in the heading unless the relatives are also notable.

All in all, I'm very impressed in the turnaround since yesterday - as with when your page was User-ified you've taken it very graciously and exceeded expectations, which is certainly vastly better than some of the responses I get! I look forward to checking back when I get back on how your contributions are going. Welcome to being a proper wikipedian! --User:Firien § 10:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also just to check - do you believe that any of the authors of the works you cite would (if alive) see your edits here as a copy of their work? WP has to be very careful about copyvio since it doesn't have the funds to be legally challenged; a clearer explanation is detailed on the Wikipedia Copyright Issues page. Citations are always good but as mentioned there it's best to rewrite content. All media, whether pictures or sounds or text etc, has to be considered copyrighted unless it fits under the terms of Fair use. Hopefully that's clear enough - I just have no way of checking up on your sources to help assess it. Hope that's helpful! --User:Firien § 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Darren Hayday article

Your views would be welcome once again at Talk:Darren Hayday. Mtiedemann 14:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Since you haven't formally been welcomed yet...

Welcome!

Hello, Hayday, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Whomp 21:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hayday 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Goodwin

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Arthur Goodwin article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Choess

Will do!

Hayday 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Afding Tory councillors

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Weiss, another Tory councillor being stitched up. Thanks. TV Genius 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation in James Hayday

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on James Hayday, by Ratbasket (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because James Hayday is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting James Hayday, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Hayday! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Nigel Crisp, Baron Crisp - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Darren.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Darren.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Darren.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Darren.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Darren1.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Darren1.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. Kelly ^hi! 02:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Darren Mayor Photo.JPG

The file File:Darren Mayor Photo.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)