User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 13

Oerlikon SAM's

Hi, is this your talk page? Why is linking spam? There are other sites, like worldstadiums.com on al those pages as well. Why can they have a link and other sites not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staafros1 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved this 3 SAM informations for one of them a page existet allready, for the 2 others i createt a new page for each, they can get linked now also with the same pages in german wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. In future please use edit summaries so people don't think your edits are vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Serial comma

Hi! While I'm not going to make an issue of it, the question of commas before "and" in a list is apparently an open one--more favored in the US than in England, but not unanimously agreed on on either side. I see that from the article here, Serial comma. I tend to favor it, especially in long and more complicated lists. There are situations where one item in a list will in fact have two parts joined by "and." Using a comma before "and," where that is not the case, can reduce ambiguity. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is the Oxford comma I referred to in the comments. However these were just simple lists with commas inserted after the last item and therefore the comma use was incorrect. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

fête

You have already heard someone pronounce "fight" for the word fête ? 198.105.102.18 (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te69JK28DDo 198.105.102.18 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because I'm going to go clicking on random YouTube videos posted by anonymous users. Canterbury Tail talk 19:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a Quebec accent. 198.105.102.18 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not clicked on it. Why are you posting such random things to my talk page? Canterbury Tail talk 21:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Libya Flag

The Libyan Flag has dark green at the bottom. The Libyan Government has it dark green. What people think isn't always what the truth is.

Batreeqah (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to tell that to the government of Libya who uses a light green. http://www.pm.gov.ly/ , the embassy http://libyanembassy.ca/home/ and all other sources in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

County flags

Can you explain your in depth knowledge of Ireland and its counties? and why you refute the de facto countrywide usage of what is known as the "county colours" both in my county where they are flown alongside the Ireland and European flag and for example here as you can see outside government buildings in Dublin castle

. which has nothing to do with a GAA event despite their initial formation by said organization a 100 years ago Caomhan27 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As you've been asked by other users, please provide references to back up these flags as the official flags of the counties. Everything that goes on Wikipedia needs to be referenced if requested and I find it highly unlikely that a GAA colours flag is used as the official or de facto flag of a county a GAA only represents sports and not even all sports at that. I also note that the flags that you claim in the photo attached is not the same as the flags you've been adding to articles. If they are de facto you should be able to easily find references. Canterbury Tail talk 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The flags shown in the image which itself is a reference, have the arms of the county on top of the the de facto "county colours" which is also how the flags are used, which outlines to an even greater extent the correlation, again i must stress this is outside dublin castle an official government of Ireland building I assume you are not contending to be a higher authority and this usage is replicated across the country in many instances. As I'm sure you know being de facto they will not be cited in official documents etc or simple google searches and so the best sources are the images showing their use in context. Caomhan27 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A flag of two colours, and a flag of two colours with a coat of arms superimposed over the top are two different flags. If it's de facto then there can be found a reliable reference somewhere. It may not be a government reference, but if it's de facto the someone will have documented or commented on such a thing. Currently the edits are Original research. Oh and the conversation should be moved to the Counties of Ireland page. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, mate.

Sorry about the Blade Runner thing. God, I feel like an idiot. What was going through my head?

No worries. It happens. Canterbury Tail talk 16:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

tell someone who cares

warned for demanding answers?! im accused for making "disruptive editing" yet the accuser can point out where and what i wrote?!?!

now you warning me for demanding answers? haha guess what? tell someone who cares because I DONT! i neither tolerate or respect admins like that 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No I warned you for calling other editors propagandists. Asking for answers and reasons is perfectly fine. Asking for references to be verified, reliable sources etc is completely acceptible. Calling others propagandists because they don't see your perspective isn't. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why instant copyright troll delete when I am the actualy owner of the content (or representing them)?

wiki Organisation for European Interstate Cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karat32 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Because that's the way Wikipedia works, and we have no evidence that you're the owner of the material. We can't have copyrighted material posted on the site without express permission. Even if you're representing them it doesn't give you the right to give up their copyright on the material. See Wp:Copyright for more details. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

NI/TE

I throw a open reference on there after your revert, from the Irish Justice Department, it shows wider usage outside of the NI assembly, for a common usgae. Murry1975 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, thanks. I've been looking for a better one from a Northern Ireland or UK source rather than from another country, but it'll be fine for now. Even the Irish Wikipedia uses that name, so not sure where the edit change from the other user came from. Canterbury Tail talk 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links

Hi, is this the right place to talk? If not excuse me for that. But why did you delete those www.stadiumzone.weebly.com links on stadium pages? I really don't understand. Worldstadiums.com and fussballtempel.net have links on almost all those pages and that's fine with you, then why can't stadiumzone have some links? They have great, large stadium panorama pictures and information about the stadiums. Staafros1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staafros1 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a collection of links and those pages already have links about photos and additional stadium info. There may need to be a culling of those links as well, but basically Wikipedia isn't here to provide connections to other sites, only to link when they add encyclopaedic content outside of the article itself. As you say they already have links to other sites, therefore we don't need more. Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good day. Check the Talk Page for Abbotsford. cited sources are there for the origin of the name and pronunciation.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.156.109 (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Muslim Nobel Laureates

Thanks for blocking the Non- Admin Users from the Page. The edits were removal of non constructive comments which have nothing to do with the article. Kindly consider reviewing the edits made by shashifakram. Comments by Abdus Salaam have nothing to do with the article. It affects the NPOV of the article. The second edit about Abdus Salaam is essential as he has been declared a non Muslim by Legal System in Pakistan. He is a non Muslim and an Ahmaddiya. He should not even be on the list considering the views of the Muslim Communities on Ahmaddiya. However since he considered himself a Muslim thus adding a single word Ahmaddiya is not wrong. Edits made by Shashifakhram are not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.117.25 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Kindly review the article regarding Dr. Abdus Salaam http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100173926/why-abdus-salam-pakistans-great-physicist-has-been-written-out-of-history-by-his-own-country/ 182.68.117.25 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved. I stopped some edit warring and I'll stop it again if need be. The rest is a pure edit war, no vandalism involved from what I can see. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Transys Semiconductors

I note you took off the links to our site but left on others that add nothing but links to the homepage, why the inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahhta (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the other sites on the list have names such application note and then link straight to the products page, thus a 'trick' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahhta (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the others, I just noticed that you're spamming links to your company. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

IRA Picture

The image you're claiming is a misrepresentation is from a page called "Derry IRA Patrol & Weapons". It purports to show the IRA in various guises. The UDR did not carry the Thompson submachine gun. I suggest you leave the image alone on the page, especially as it's Troubles page and restricted to 1RR. Start a discussion on the image talk page and it can be resolved there but don't go round accusing me of misrepresentation. You can examine all the images of mine you want to - you won't find anything wrong. a little bit of WP:GOODFAITH might go a long way in your case. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already apologised on your talk page. Must have been an edit conflict. Canterbury Tail talk 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I noted that. May I respectfully suggest that in future you examine the detail very closely before making such a serious accusation. I was deeply offended. I've picked the best licence I could. If you have any suggestions as to what other form of licencing could be used then I'd love to hear them because I wasn't entirely happy myself. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, that's what I get for rush editing. Again, apologies, my mistake. As for licensing, I'm not a complete expert myself but I think they best would have to be a fair use of some sort. CC can't be used as that is giving up rights to the image which aren't yours to give away. Unfortunately we have no idea who originated the image which makes it much trickier. I think that kind of thing is best handled by the experts over at the copyright noticeboards, but I can't seem to find the link right now. I'll have a look and see what I can find. I just know CC won't apply. Canterbury Tail talk 16:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok when you've finished wiping that egg off your face go and have a cup of coffee. I've tagged the image with {wrong-license} so somebody should have a look at it sooner or later. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've begun a discussion about this image on its talkpage (here). ~Asarlaí 16:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might want to know. I've nominated File:TSMG UDR 1.JPG for deletion. I went back to the source page as a result of a doubt thrown up by another editor and the caption wording seems to have changed which clarifies the situation more and I now believe this is a photograph of UDR soldiers with a captured Thompson sub-machine gun. The file has been removed from both articles I was using it on. Like you I want to be absolutely certain that what I'm posting is accurate. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I admit there is confusion on that page regarding the actual photo contents, it doesn't seem clear. Oh and I apologise again for the whole misrepresentation thing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no confusion when I first looked at it and when you looked again. The caption has been changed now (I wonder how they knew to change it) leaving no ambiguity. Don't worry about it. From my perspective it was almost at the end of the day and I get a bit cranky then unless matron has made me lie down for my nap. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy Irvine (musician)

Dear 'Canterbury Tail',

Thank you for the comments you added to the subject article yesterday, and for adding the 'Cleanup' tag at its head.

I have now removed all the editorial comments (i.e. "[To be expanded later]") I had inserted into the original article a few days ago. I fully agree with you that I shouldn't have done that (I even thought about *not* doing it while I was doing it!) but they helped me add structure at the time, and with planning later changes. In any case, I have removed them all today and also polished the existing 'text stubs' to make them more legible for now; I intend to improve on these over the next few days and weeks. Thank you for pointing this out; it was an easy improvement for me to apply, and I obviously wish to remain a good citizen of WP. ;-)

Your comment about the amount of detail I added to the article has caused me to reflect on my approach as a contributor. You will obviously have noticed that my goal is to inform the readers about the professional career of this musician without writing a biography (note the absence of sections on 'Personal life' and the like). So, the article essentially consists of a chronological list of his projects and main career events, which can of course be quite dry (boring?) unless one is interested in the subject. So, his career being such a long one, I decided to make the text more accessible by creating a sub-section for each decade, and then breaking each of these down further with a paragraph on each major career event or milestone. Inevitably, the article therefore reads like a long list of projects, most of which were either tours or recordings. For the latter, I supply the list of personnel and briefly discuss each track, along with details either on the genesis or content of the track, or on the instrument(s) used. As you noticed, I have made extensive use of 'wikilinks' to enrich the reader's experience with easy access to other parts of the encyclopedia (one of WP's most wonderfully didactic features, by the way).

If I were to remove some of the details I included, then I feel this would impoverish the encyclopedia. For example, I aim to anticipate the reader's potential questions about a given topic, such as: "Why and in what ways is Bulgarian traditional music important to Andy Irvine? What's special about Bulgarian traditional music? I want to learn more about it and understand it better."

So, please would you be kind enough to give me a few examples of what you viewed as "too much detail" and, also, "impenetrable walls of text"? That would help me understand in what ways you think the article should look and how I could improve it further. Perhaps I might also suggest that a reader motivated to find out more about this musician by consulting WP, say, after attending one of his concerts, might expect to find the informative details I have supplied, and most likely enjoy reading about them more that an expert editor such as yourself, who would justifiably view the content simply as text to be reviewed for its conformity to editorial rules. (And I certainly don't mean to imply that I challenge either the value of editorial rules, or the need for editors to enforce them.)

Thank you also for altering my use of 'Derry' (which was mentioned as such in the original source) into 'Londonderry', and I note your mission to contribute to the clarity of references to geographical locations. Would you agree that the combined 'Derry/Londonderry' has emerged as the norm in recent years, certainly in the media? If so, would you agree that I update the article accordingly? Thank you for your consideration and response, at your convenience.

Finally, by "comments in the open text", did you mean the quotations I corroborated with references to reliable, third party sources? In the case of the section on 'Woody Guthrie influences', for example, I quoted Irvine's words from the original article in Frets #73 because I thought the use of his own 'voice' would add vivacity to the WP article. There are more quotes later, again because I felt they add life to the text while also conforming to the need for as many reliable citations as possible. These quotations are there because they add valuable information to the reader about why certain events happened, or why the individual(s) concerned made certain decisions.

Thank you once again for your helpful assistance; I appreciate your constructive comments. With kind regards; Patrick. Pdebee (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 'Canterbury Tail'; I have taken action as per your suggestion a few days ago:

1) I have removed all my editor's comments "[Section to be expanded later]";

2) I have removed two quotations and de-italicized the rest, left them in quotation marks and 'boxed' them (as per the WP guidelines for quotations containing >40 words);

3) I have addressed your suggestion about "impenetrable walls of text" by adding an additional level of titled sub-sections (these not only add space in the text but also enable the reader to go straight to a specific sub-section from the Table of Contents, without having to browse through the whole article);

4) I have kept your modification of 'Londonderry', which I grant you is the official, legal name of the city and county, but have preceded it with 'Derry', as is now the established norm in the media, taking also into consideration that a large majority of people in both communities also refer to the city and county as 'Derry' (as per the article on the subject in WP itself).

5) I have looked at other WP articles and have concluded that many of them could also be accused of providing "too much detail". I have therefore decided to keep the details I originally added, because they provide a level of precision and completeness that would enrich the experience of the reader interested in learning more about this musician and his contributions to the genre. When there was an existing WP article on a related subject (such as the albums released by Planxty, for example), I have purposefully refrained from duplicating that information in the article on Andy Irvine (musician).

I therefore believe I have taken careful consideration of your suggestions and have acted on most of them. In the absence of any communications from you since your intervention, I will conclude that my actions have addressed your issues and I will therefore remove the 'cleanup tag' that you inserted in the article. Of course, if you disagree with any of the above, then I am sure you will want to tell me and I will be glad to review any further, constructive suggestions you wish to offer.

With kind regards; Patrick. Pdebee (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Good job. One thing, I've changed the reference to County Derry back to County Londonderry. As per WP:IMOS the name of the county used on Wikipedia is County Londonderry as that is the only name it's ever had. For the city we use Derry, but this is a clear reference to the county so only County Londonderry is appropriate. The subjects views are not a point of consideration on this. We don't use / designations either. It's a simple County Londonderry for the county, and Derry for the city. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello 'Canterbury Tail'; Thank you for your helpful response (and praise). I fully agree with you on the point you make about County Londonderry; I hadn't seen the WP:IMOS article until you mentioned in your in-situ update in the article itself but now that I have read it, I can only apologize for causing you unnecessary work. All in all, your suggestions have enabled me to improve the article and I am glad of the outcome. Thank you for your patience and keep well. With kind regards; Patrick.Pdebee (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries. The article looks a lot better now, good job. Canterbury Tail talk 14:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reposession etc.

Per your reversion at List of British words not widely used in the United States, presumably this entry at List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom ought to come out as well? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I love stuff like this, thanks for pointing out these articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding topic ban

Avatar: The Last Airbender is not part of WP:ANIME's scope nor universally considered "anime" nor "manga". It is made by two americans and the animation was produced in korea. Neither of them are Japanese.Lucia Black (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It comes under Anime broadly construed, which is the wording of the ban. I'm not trying to block you, just trying to warn you that you could be blocked for it under the interpretation of the topic ban. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Derry

CanterburyTail, I was led to believe by Murry1975 that he would raise an RFC on the issue. This is the reason why I allowed the RFC I had raised to be closed. If the template says "official_name", should that field not then be populated with the official name "Londonderry", after all the text does say "officially Londonderry". This being the case, do I need consensus to make a change that is already in the body of the text and inline with the infobox template? If you have an issue with the infobox template you should really take you issue up somewhere else other than the Derry page. This is an infobox issue, not a content issue.Dubs boy (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a content issue and has been discussed on the talk page with no consensus to change it. It is not an issue with the infobox itself, but the content that goes into it and the definition of official. Discuss it on the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 17:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you too involved to issue the block? There's a strong case for a block immediately. He asked on the Talk page if he could make the edit if there were no objections. He was told that he has no consensus - so he ignored that and just makes the edit anyway. That's intentionally disruptive. He was warned on this previously, once by you. --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm too involved, I'm not involved in the discussion just in policing the discussion and consensus. However he has not edited the article again since so I can't block the user. He's been warned about making an edit against consensus, he hasn't made the edit, so I can't block. Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly correct. After DubsBoy posted that he'd make the change if nobody objected on the Derry Talk page, I immediately responded that he does not have a consensus for the change. He was warned. But he made the edit anyway. He even sought clarification, and I again responded immediately that he needed consensus to make the change. So he was warned, twice, and went ahead and made the edit anyway. --HighKing (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes but I warned him in an official capacity after the edit had been made. I can't block a user for an edit I gave them a warning about after warning them, they need to repeat the behaviour before that can happen after the warning. Canterbury Tail talk 11:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious Highking? You are currently on yet another topic ban, you have a history of sock puppetry and now you are trying to get me blocked for making an edit which is factual. Are you for real man? Canterbury Tail, why does Highking continue to medal in these discussions when their topic bans suggest they are not qualified to do so. And for the record I've made 4 edits over 3 months to this page. Also Highking made a revert which I believe goes against their topic ban also.Dubs boy (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Carter Article

Hello! It's regarding the Sheila Carter article. I did not write most of it but recently made a few changes and corrections. If you take a look at other Wikipedia soap opera character articles, you'll see that they too have very few sources in their storyline sections. This is because it's articles written by viewers and fans who viewed the show on TV (or online) and then described what they saw.

These links, http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php & http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php , resume most everything you see on the Wiki Sheila article. This link, http://tvmegasite.net/transcripts/yr/older/ , an this link, http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/episodes/ , also resume storylines. What else can be used than these links? It's just description of fictional events; this is why I think these links suffice. Israell (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hibernia Networks

Canterbury, This line alone goes against IMOS, are you serious? "Hibernia manages cable landing stations in Dublin, Ireland; Coleraine, Northern Ireland" But Coleraine is also in Ireland. I am as much a SPA as anyone of the BI/IMOS warriors on the scene. Please refrain from personal attacks. thanks, Dubs boy (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see that line. Taken with that line then yes, the ROI applies. I've partially undone my revert. Canterbury Tail talk 22:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It just seems like you followed me there then made a revert because it was made by me. Check the edit next time.Dubs boy (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Following people on there edits? What type of person would do that [1], [2]. No really related subjects are they? Murry1975 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with Murry1975's inability to spell 'County'.Dubs boy (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Neo ^

Hello, Canterbury Tail. You have new messages at Neo ^'s talk page.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yebira

Canterbury Tail, I noticed that you reverted a recent edit to the Yebira article, I tried to revert your edit but as you can see I am not very experienced at such things, sorry for messing things up. Can you take a look at the edits you reverted again? In the process you removed a good image, an image gallery, a template that added the article to other related articles, and an external image link to a pinterest site with related images. I am thinking that you reverted the edits due to the external link, if that is so then why revert all of the other edits which are a vast improvement to the article? I can not see what the problem is with the external link, it is not a commercial site as far as I can see but even if it is not appropriate the other edits should be re-added to the article. Thanks 2A00:8C40:40:0:0:0:70E9:7B27 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius and Ef alt

Regarding these two accounts, User:Epicfailure 2 is also a alternate account of Epicgenius. It made a couple of hundred edits today, block evasion on a massive scale:

Here are the diffs showing that the accounts are connected:

Epicfailure 2 requesting rollback, and claiming to be Epicgenius: [3]

Epicgenius confirming that they are the same person: [4];

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is stuff I would normally post on Epicgenius' talk page, but he banned me from there when I banned him from mine, so I can't.

As part of his latest unblock request, Epicgenius said that he would no longer edit articles that I edited, however at least one of the articles he edited today as Epicfailure 2 (i haven;t looked through them all) was Beate Sirota Gordon, an article I've edited heavily (most contributions by number) and which Epicgenius has never been to. I find it hard to believe that Epicgenius-as-Epicfailure 2 just happened to go to that article randomly, independent of it being an article I've worked on in the past.

I don't think that Epicgenius can be trusted to keep his word. This latest brouhaha started because we made an agreement that we would talk civiliy to each other, I would explain on his talk page when I reverted his edits why I had done so, and he would stop making edits against the consensus reached on the Bowery article. He broke that when he used AWB to make 30+ edits involving "the Bowery". When I reverted his non-consensus edits, he reverted back, thus breaking another part of our agreement, which was no unthinking reverts on his part. I just don't think he's mature enough to make and keep an agreement that goes against what he really wants to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think extending his block even more is the answer. I think the kid needs to have the riot act read to him by an admin: straighten up and fly right, one account only, no block evasion, remove rollback & AWB privileges, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

THanks for the heads up. Canterbury Tail talk 00:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please take a look a this thread? I think it's self-explanatory. There's also this. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada

Thanks for your assistance in the official languages matter. Got a lot more resistance than I expected. Knoper (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I just did what I thought was right for the page, not to support one user or another. Canterbury Tail talk 19:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant your expenditure of time to help detail a solution, not support. A lot of users get scared off seeing blocks of text, you were able to add to the discussion constructively. Knoper (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Anytime. Canterbury Tail talk 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how the argument has seemed to devolve into insults, I've just decided to try and get a vote to get the feelings of the editors. Did I use the right format for it? Knoper (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for Europe by Satellite edit

Thank you for recognizing the problem at Europe by Satellite. It's unfortunate that other Wikipedians would just be ready to dismiss the problem. Percolaytor (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't find any actual copyright violations on the article, so I left everything else as is. Just removed that copyright notice. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on those pages!

I was just getting ready to go through these and tag them for CSD through the same reason the articles were deleted for! Appreciate the help, there. 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 12:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the user unfortunately has a history of non-commuication and copyright infringement. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Genuine (not sarcastic) thanks for indeffing my alternative account

Thank you very much (genuinely) for blocking my alternative account Ef alt (talk · contribs). Happy holidays, Epicgenius (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, can you unblock Epicfailure 2 in January 2014? I intend to use it as a legit sock in 2014 to edit at a public library, and I will not misuse it as I did in November. If I get blocked again, you can indefinitely block Epicfailure 2. Epicgenius (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

About page protection

I check my talk page and see you left a message about edit war. I never want to edit anything in these articles. I revert others change because someone just delete the casualties in many articles(Probably 5 or 6 articles).I think should not delete these data which previous people edited. I did not edit any new information. I just prevent others to delete the information of these pages. Moreover I add my reason in all talk pages of these articles,please see the talk page. I don't want to involve any dispute. Thus, please set the page protection in these articles, thank you. These articles are Siege of Suncheon, Siege of Haengju and Siege of Pyongyang (1593).Can you set the page protection because I do not know how to request that? Hope for your reply. Thank you.—Miracle dream (talk • contribs —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pride in using the St. George's Cross

Can you please explain the inconsistency between how the use of flags in infoboxes is interpreted? It appears Americans are permitted to use them anywhere and everywhere without question, yet in the UK, especially England, people like you are critical, almost embarrassed and most unpatriotic? Wicks Steve (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you are not British would it? Wicks Steve (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Who says I'm not British?

It seems that in the UK people don't like using them because they clutter the infoboxes and don't add anything. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think we would be better of questioning if Americans are right to use flags anywhere and everywhere rather than assuming the British are wrong for choosing not to do so. I think that the OP ties use of flags to the pride and patriotism of editors (rather than their benefit to the encyclopdia) is telling.

The relevant style guide is quite old (though bloated like everything else now) and was originally called simply "flag cruft" (see Cruft). --Tóraí (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User Cluain

I've highlighted at Cluain's talk page where they have decided to reimpose their view of Derry in place of Londonderry, this time attempting to do it subtlety by changing it to: [[County Derry|Londonderry]]. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker):Its odd five+ year hiatus then returning with SPA-style edits. I cant find a ink between this guy and anyone in the past, lets AGF and hope he either talks about his issue prior to the block being up or doesnt repeat. Canterbury Tail, could you give him the Troubles warning- I a pretty sure Derry/Londonderry swapping is covered under it. If he repeats then we would be able to move him along that road, so to speak. Murry1975 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's strange to suddenly reappear from reasonable edits to pursuing this single mindedly, and only on this one rather obscure page as well. He also edits it logged out, but the IP is blatantly them from a timing observation. Lets see what happens if they return from the current block (which they probably won't is my guess.) Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And they decided to create a new account to evade their block and continue the edits. Canterbury Tail talk 18:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to e-mail them directly- might be helpful in seeing if the account is compromised. Murry1975 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. Though the IP and other account creation makes it seem unlikely. Thanks for taking an interest. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well a week and no return contact, me thinks either sleeper sock or compromised account. Murry1975 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for a while anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Ballenberg - Bernese Midlands House - Ben W Bell 31 Aug 2005.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Baxter Aviation Beaver 2006 Ben W Bell.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Ben W Bell Choya 05 June 2007.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Closeup of thatching Ben W Bell 31 7 2005.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Eventualist

Hi, I recently made this template:eventualist which you deleted, and received this post on my wall:

Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a content creator in the top 1000 editors who made this template to post on other content creators' walls. Can I please receive an explanation for this deletion on my talk page? Thanks. PhnomPencil (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a blank template, in mainspace, with edit remarks of testing. This lead me to believe that these were testing edits to a template with no visible function. As a result it was deleted as of no visible use and testing shouldn't take place in mainspace. Canterbury Tail talk 14:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright as another user who has seen and deleted a lot of shit around here let's be real with each other. I made the mistake of writing "test" in the edit summary. But please understand that I am not being WP:POINTy when I maintain that the deletion of the template, templating my talk page as a new user, and arguing that the template was blank is incorrect. You maintain that it was correct. We disagree. I have gone to wp:Requests for undeletion and am posting here to let you know, as it is unfair for only half the argument to be made. Please reiterate your argument there. Thank you. PhnomPencil (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind if you have it undeleted if you feel it's that important, it was deleted on a routine pass through of newly created pages. However I do not appreciate your entitled attitude towards this matter, people don't go through other editors edits to determine if what appears to be a routine cleanup should not be done based on an editors editcount and I fail to see what your edit history has to do with this. It should also be pointed out that it was not "too quick on the button" as it was 42 minutes later that I deleted the template that any editor would have believed to have been a test edit due to it's lack of visible effect, unfinished nature and comments that it was testing in mainspace. Looking at your edit history now I see a lot of deleted articles and a lot of deleted templates so I'm not sure what you're hoping for me to see there. Anyway, feel free to have the template undeleted if you wish, I have no resistance to the idea as long as it's useful, however I don't believe I made an error in deleting it so please don't imply otherwise. Or you can just recreate the template. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you say you don't mind, I am going to undelete it. I think both of you should walk away from this. On the one hand, the fact that it said testing made it, well, seem very much like a test, and deleting test edits is quite proper. There was no way to know it was not. On the other, it was not empty, placing a visible (but small and not easily noticed) icon () on the far upper right of the page and in any event many templates have no display on their template pages, with the coding nevertheless performing some function in intended use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Causeway Coast

Hi. In this edit-sum you note that we shouldn't refer to "Causeway Coast" because the "Causeway Coast" is a large area outside the scope of the article. Per the UNESCO definition and scope, the "Causeway Coast" is only the 70 hectares surrounding the causeway formation itself - which pretty much just covers the visitor centre, and the paths to and slightly beyond the "hub" of the causeway formation. This would seem to be well within the scope of the article (consider for example the access, flora and fauna content). The "Causeway Coast" isn't the entire stretch of coast including half of Antrim, Bushmills or anything like it (UNESCO isn't "protecting" the farms and the like around the area - just the several hundred metres by several hundred metres around the site). So, I don't really see that excising "Coast" because it's outside the scope of the article is strictly a valid argument. (In fact, I would point out that the infobox has referred to the UNESCO name for nearly 7 years, and that has seemed reasonable/appropriate to editors in all that time.) I am not saying that because it's been that way for 7 years, it should stay that way. But I'm saying that the argument provided for now removing it doesn't seem correct to me. You reverted my "tweak" (of the immediately preceding edit - which had no edit sum or explanation) on "Good Faith" grounds. Implying that I had made a mistake in restoring the UNESCO name. I wonder whether you might want to reconsider whether it was actually the previous edit that was actually the "Good Faith" error? Guliolopez (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, my mistake on the coast thing. I find it odd though that only UNESCO seems to refer to it by that, the authorities in Northern Ireland don't. The National Trust who govern it don't. It's only under WHC designation that it seems to be called that so I don't see how it can be the official name for it. So my initial reasoning was, as you pointed out, incorrect. However I don't see how we can use that as the native name since that's not what it's called natively. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK - Thanks. I will revert for now. But, if you think it's warranted, I guess we can have a quick CON discussion (on the article talk page) about whether the infobox label should be updated for COMMONNAME reasons. (Which I guess is a slightly different argument). Guliolopez (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely a conversation that should take place on that talk page and not here. I'm okay with the revert and I'll start a topic conversation there at some point. Canterbury Tail talk 14:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bradley International Airport

Hi, this is AirportExpert. According to the Southwest Airlines official website, you can book a flight from Las Vegas to Hartford for any day, including off-season times. If you have another more reliable source stating otherwise, then you can change the page, but according to the airline's official website, Las Vegas to Hartford is indeed a regularly scheduled flight. Also, according to Bradley International Airport's official website, Las Vegas is not listed as a seasonal destination. Thank you.--AirportExpert (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh well if that's the case then apologies. I thought it was just a removal of a tag as has happened frequently on that page (hence the note.) In which case you should remove the note as well. Canterbury Tail talk 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

UnbiasedVictory

You probably know this already but don't expect any kind of dialogue with UV. Using his past track record, the most likely response is that your entries on his talk page will be deleted. Natty10000 | Natter  19:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Elite Beast is known as Beast Mode Ethan on Youtube‎

Please delete [Elite Beast is known as Beast Mode Ethan on Youtube‎] again. I accidentally recreated it when I tagged it for speedy. Meters (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. No worries. Canterbury Tail talk 19:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ireland BCE

See WP:ERA. We shouldn't change established style and BCE is not specially preferred. The article uses AD nor CE. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, I didn't check through the entire article just saw the user changing one instance. I should have checked further. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

destruction? malicious content delete?

Dear Sir,

I finished a phd on social anthropology i have noticed much of the work i drew upon namely on the Cheema article. I am shocked to notice there has been a sustained and subtle attack on removing more than 90% of the content, content which had verified and provable content. I am in dismay the article has been reduced to loosely one line of text! please check history, how can over 90% of well cited text disappear? Since i personally can prove the citations i can also prove my academic credentials if required. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.27.125 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

example of previous article: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cheema&oldid=394553550 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.27.125 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

...here we go again.

[5] Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've given him a warning. I don't believe this is blockable just yet but I've made it clear that if he makes that edit again without discussion and consensus he will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sock activity on Turkey page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

THanks. I've blocked the IPs, for what it's worth and protected the article against non-autoconfirmed users editing for a month. Canterbury Tail talk 23:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Good solution. Quick question: is the IP block an IP range block? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No it's not, not sure of the range of it just yet. Lets keep an eye out. Canterbury Tail talk 00:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And the personal attacks and bad faith remarks he makes toward me on his talk page I find unacceptable. WP:HARDBLOCK? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on noticebord. But I think this IP 46.143.214.22 is different? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And now this IP reverting the same page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/126.48.42.184 They deleting my comments. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good luck with that Alien edit. I agree, but . . . the SF film folks are a TOUGH crowd. HullIntegrity (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The UPC IP guy

I see you have blocked him for a week, for his B/I editing, and aggressive tp attitude, but since it is within the scope of it, I would ask because of his constant POV edits, should he be given a Troubles warring? Murry1975 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not convinced it is within the scope of the Troubles restrictions to be honest. I agree it could be considered borderline, but I'm not sure. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:GS/BI covers it not the troubles (sorry).

"Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors Murry1975 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah good call, I'd forgotten entirely about that. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi mate. You were the admin which banned User:Lord of Rivendell because of his distruptive edits. Could you please check Talk:Turkey#Vandal is back on business.

Latest SPI for UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear

Hi Canterbury Tail, as you were involved with one or more ANIs and/or SPIs for UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear in the past, I'm notifying you that another SPI has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd. Please keep an eye out on your watchlist for any suspicious activities in UrbanNerd's former stomping grounds as perhaps there are more than the three IPs I've come across thus far. Any additional IPs or evidence you may uncover would be appreciated at the SPI. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Long time, hope all is good.

Murry1975 (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Landmarks of Toronto

Hi there, I've been meaning to update my user profile to let people know where the majority of my information comes from. Landmarks of Toronto was a book written by John Ross Robertson, his collection of illustrations of Old Toronto forms the richest single graphic historical resource of any city in Canada. As a historical record, Robertson’s Landmark of Toronto remain unrivalled for the period they cover. However, most of the information is inaccessible and not many people have taken the time to digitize the information.

When I studied that the University of Toronto one of my professors got us involved with a Wikipedia pilot project where we would create pages that had to do with Canadian newspapers. They explained that a lot of the pages on Canadian history are lacking and many articles are stubs. So a lot of this information in this book is augmenting popular information with the details that are difficult to access. I've contributed a lot and all the information is accurate and relevant. Sorry about the issue with external links, that was my misunderstanding. If you have any more questions feel free to ask!

Laxim (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2015

Request

Hi Canterbury Tail, could you semi-protect Dromore, County Down. An IP seems intent on forcing a change of "Football" to "Soccer" even though there is no good reason for it especially as there is no mention of any Gaelic sports never mind Gaelic football. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that may be overkill for one article. If it happens again please use a valid edit summary, there's nothing in your summary to indicate why this is wrong, it's just a straight revert with no explanation of the edit. You can use the WP:ENGVAR as a reason. Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay dokey! Mabuska ^(talk) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Aliens

Hi there! I just undid your undoing of my edit, and I wanted to more thoroughly explain myself here. It's impossible to tell if Burke was killed in the scene in question. He opens a door, a xenomorph is there, he looks terrified, it hisses and lunges. This is all we see. As he never returns, it's safe to say he was either killed or captured. The xenomorphs explicitly do not kill their prey if possible; they return them to the nest for embryo implantation. Knowing that - and in the interests of not introducing too many details to this section of the plot - I personally prefer the sentence as it stands now. I'm open to other suggestions, though; what do you think?

I will also point out that the IP who introduced the 'Burke is killed' edit also introduced several grammatical errors that we'll need to correct, if we agree on their statement. NekoKatsun (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Canterbury Tail!

Happy New Year!

Canterbury Tail,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 12:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

Dear Canterbury Tail,
I hope all is well with you. Have a great year in 2016!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 12:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Comments

With all due respect, nobody's insulting anybody. "These people" is not even remotely insulting or derogatory to anybody. If I wrote "these stupid people" or "these terrible people" it would indeed be insulting, which I did not write. If you interpreted it as an insult, then I can only pray for you. Please be aware of Wikipedia:ADHOMINEM.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about Wikipedia:Tag team here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cadbury Caramilk IPs

The ANI ping was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fomenka. I mentioned the IPs' attacks on your talk page while reporting a probable associated username. After three weeks of daily trolling I was getting fed up. The account was immediately indeff'ed. Meters (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That was a test and you failed

Funny how people like you will revert a County Derry link in minutes but will allow a link to the city of Londonderry on the Coleraine page to last for days and for one on the Northern Ireland page to last for a very long time even when a request from a lowly IP has been made. Show us that you are a NPOV editor and make that change....

p.s. You can delete this but you know that people who really look at your talkpage will know. Happy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.57.162 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't watch the Coleraine page and there is no request on the Coleraine talk page so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also note that on Coleraine the change from Londonderry to Derry for the city was kept as per our guidelines, not changed to the incorrect Londonderry. Canterbury Tail talk 11:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see, there is a request for the Northern Ireland page (hadn't noticed that, rarely read the Northern Ireland talk page as there's often a lot of garbage noise.) I see what you're saying, yup Londonderry shouldn't be used there per WP:IMOS so I've corrected it to Derry. Canterbury Tail talk 11:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Irish cheeses

Hi, I see you protected Bellaghy. Can you also protect List of Irish cheeses as it looks like the same anon editor using an IPV6] anon address is making the same changes. Thank you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, for one week. I love the fact they term it a "Typo". In fact I've noticed the last month or so there has been a mass of IPs making edits to County Derry all over the encyclopaedia all using the "typo" or "fixing typo" edit summary, but there're not all the same. Canterbury Tail talk 15:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of County Londonderry

Hi Canterbury Tail, Bellaghy GAC is suffering constant removal of County Londonderry, mostly by the same IPs. Can you please block IP editing for a couple of months or more? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

They're making a lot of other constructive edits, I don't think it would be prudent to block them outright just for that especially without a warning. You could drop them a warning on their talk pages and if they continue to do so then we could look at blocks etc. Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean block the IP itself, just prevent IP editing on the article itself for a short span, page protection is what I mean. The was warned on 2nd August upon the third or whatever time it was that IP had removed it. But they have a non static IP address with it changing slightly every now and then and it is already different now. Though a different IP appeared afterwards to remove it this time. This is not the only article this editor has removed it from over the past while [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Should I copy and paste a warning to each and every IP? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. Hmm, it's hard to protect every page that has the term County Londonderry in it. We can protect the articles for a short time from the IPs yes. Let me know the list. Canterbury Tail talk 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Well Bellaghy GAC seems to be the main one suffering from persistent removal so I would suggest simply protecting that one for the time being. The rest don't seem to be as affected as often as that one. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I went through some of the other GAA club articles and noticed that it had been removed in a couple of cases, so I added it back in. In one case it was removed about a year ago. I'll keep an eye out. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this has the same modus. Might even be the original account used. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of Revision Undo

Hello Canterbury Tail, here to further explain, Marc W. Miller edit. The article's flaw was that Miller quit GDW in 1991 and was not employed there at the time the business ceased operations in 1996. Thus, Miller quote is simply conjecture which makes Polymancer article hearsay. In this case, the reference is not of a credible source. Further, the interview relative to GDW could be considered a self-published source which is frowned upon. Edit also gives proper credit to fellow GDW designers regarding the Traveller project as noted with appropriate citation of Shannon Appelcline, namely; Chadwick, Harshman, and Wiseman. Edit also removed peacock terms consistent with previous edits by fellow contributors to Loren Wiseman article. Traveller-Onlooker (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5

The source for the theft of ideas from Babylon 5 is right above the paragraph I wrote. J. Michael Straczynski gave the Babylon 5 show bible (along with 22 story ideas) to Paramount when he tried to sell Babylon 5 to them. The fact that a number of those characters, arcs, ideas showed up in Deep Space Nine is no coincidence due to, "The zeitgeist of the time." Paramount had all of this information a couple years before they created Deep Space Nine. I just listed which characters and concepts they took from that information and used in Deep Space Nine. But the source is the paragraph above the one where those similarities were detailed. B5Erik (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe but you making the comparisons is your own original research. You are unfortunately not a respected authority on this issue and listing what you believe to be similarities is purely original research. Unless it can be reliably sourced that people make these claims then they're not encyclopaedic and we can't include the. See also WP:Verifiability. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Canterbury Tail. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Badminton

Hi Canterbury Tail. Sinead Chambers is an Irish badminton player, and for Commonwealth Games she represented Northern Ireland. So, Category: Irish female badminton players shouldnt be removed. Thanks

Alpha Bay

Hi Canterbury. Yes I know I could have just shown those two pages as redirects, but they had already been redirects that the page creator then refilled with all the details from the target page, so I believe that we are better off just junking the pages. Just my twopenorth. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. I just changed them to redirects to avoid the duplication. We could just junk them if it seems they're unlikely redirects, but they seem that they may come up. Canterbury Tail talk 19:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Current projects

You list on your user page that one of your current projects is to remove the apostrophe from decades references (e.g. 1920's => 1920s). Wouldn't this be a job for a bot? If you don't have the programming skill to create the bot, there's likely a forum to request someone to create it. You shouldn't waste your own valuable editing time on such chores. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh that. Been a while since I've done that. But yes it could be a bot job, but I'm not so bothered anymore. Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Canterbury Tail.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Canterbury Tail. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Canterbury Tail. 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)

Page protection request

Hi Canterbury Tail, Magherafelt GAC is facing constant IP disruption in regards to County Londonderry and Northern Ireland [11]. Whilst I am happy to keep reverting the ever-changing IP, I think a temporary IP editing the article block is needed. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. 3 months. Canterbury Tail talk 19:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories

(conversation about an article edits moved to appropriate article talk page, Talk:Harbledown.)

Thank you

Thank you for your decisive handling of Twobells recent edit warring. He's been an annoying drip of water-style edit warrior on a number of television articles that are U.S./UK co-productions for some time, and a frustration to several of we editors who are attempting to move with the times and represent how these multi-national collaborative productions work. Sadly, he was so drive by nationalism that he couldn't see past it. Several of us tried to help him understand how consensus, reliable sources, verifiability and edit warring worked, but to no avail. So it was refreshing, and heartening, to see you step back, look at the big picture with him, and act accordingly. It will cut down the tension and hassle where these co-productions are concerned. --Drmargi (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've seen them around before, and seen them blocked before over warring without trying to get consensus. They kept edit warring, even after warnings and broke many of their previous unblock promises. There really was no choice. By and large their edits were not constructive. However I only gave them a 2 week block, so they're welcome to come back as long as they can edit constructively. There are conditions attached to it, so only time will tell. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The conditions were the best part, frankly. He's long used one-a-day reverts as a means to slow edit war, and it makes it nearly impossible to get any action at AN3. We'll see what he does. Meanwhile, I buddy of his has picked up the cause at Downton Abbey (one of the edit wars Twobells resumed this morning) and is trying to push in an inaccurate edit. We're discussing, but he's not listening. --Drmargi (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello CT. The rant on this editors talk page has now devolved into direct personal attacks. Perhaps talk page access should be removed before they dig their hole any deeper. MarnetteD|Talk 16:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. It's a sad reality that there is a certain subset of editors who feel the only way deal with an editor who won't fall in with their edits is to resort to personal attacks and/or false accusations. I'm glad to see the action taken to address Twobells' insults. --Drmargi (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. They were being a very disruptive editor, and looking back at their edits almost entirely singleminded in the national editing of articles. Looking at some of their edits they seemed to think that if something is filmed in a country then it's a production of that country (by that logic Empire Strikes Back is Norwegian and Star Wars is Tunisian.) Canterbury Tail talk 01:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I know! It's tricky these days because so many productions are cross-national collaborations, such as the BBC and ITV productions that Masterpiece co-produces; look at The Crown and The Grand Tour that are, despite their Britishness, for all intents and purposes American productions given they are funded and produced by Netflix and Amazon Studios respectively. I've lived on top of the industry my whole life, which I think makes it a bit easier to understand its inner workings, but I can see how most people don't understand the scope of the word "produced" in this context. We could never get Twobells to see the difference between these major collaborations and the top-up money Sky1 provided to get the first season of Battlestar Galactica off the ground, after which time it stepped away. I think that's where the single-mindedness was born. (I once got into a discussion where I used ER being Croatian because it had a cast member from there at the time to illustrate how far to the wrong extreme this can go, so your examples above made me laugh!) --Drmargi (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit reverted Re. Resignation of Northern Ireland deputy First Minister

Hi there, I see that my edit reflecting the fact that the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland Martin McGuinness has resigned from his post was reverted by you on the basis that you had seen no evidence that the First Minister was also no longer in post.

I would point you to two sources regarding the position of Arlene Foster.

• First the legislation that concerns the running of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive (the Northern Ireland Act, 1998, amended by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006) specifically Part II, Section 8 which amends, among other things, Section 16B, Subsection 2 of the 1998 act stating:

(2) If either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister ceases to hold office at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—

(a) shall also cease to hold office at that time; but

(b) may continue to exercise the functions of his office until immediately before those offices are filled in accordance with this section.

• The second source I would refer you to is this BBC News article from January 9 entitled "McGuinness quits - what happens next?" which begins

Once Martin McGuinness' resignation takes effect, under the joint protocols that govern Stormont's power sharing government, First Minister Arlene Foster also loses her office.

The entire premise behind the Office of First and Deputy First Minister is that one cannot exist without the other.

The article has since been corrected by another user but I would like you to be aware of the facts regarding this issue.

Thanks. The news stories I could find when the edit was originally made didn't mention those rules and made no mention of Arlene Foster losing her position, which is why I partially reverted due to the lack of references. Some interesting wording in the BBC News articles also that state that she only loses the position once his resignation comes into effect, but with no mention of when the resignation comes into effect. So the news coverage is a tad confusing on what the actual situation is. However I do appreciate you bringing additional information as it clarifies the situation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Issues about Firefly (TV series)

I started a discussion: Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Re-evaluating FA status. I invite you there to discuss how to improve the article. --George Ho (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Issues with Pony (programming language)

Please note that while the page I was attempting to add to wikipedia may not have sufficiently complied with the guidelines I do resent being told that I an vandalizing a public knowledge base when I am merely attempting to contribute to the content. The subject matter in question is not for my own promotion but merely because there already other references to the particular subject within wikipedia: Actor model, Algebraic data type and I felt that it was an omission to not at least have simple explanation page with references to some of the key publications (interviews and academic papers). RealityDysfunction (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding a page and being informed it's not appropriate at this time is perfectly fine, it happens all the time. However multiple people have asked you to stop and you have continued to re-add articles that don't comply with Wikipiedia's policies. If you persist in continually redoing the same behaviour it is classed as disruptive editing and under Wikipedia's policies can result in being blocked. Once is fine, 3 times is viewed as disruptive. You are free to contribute to the encyclopaedia content but continually editing against the rest of the community and policies is not encouraged. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Article IP edit block request

Hi, could you block IP editing of the Inishowen article for a couple of weeks? An IP keeps altering a couple of bits to their own viewpoint even though they have been notified that as the island is also being mentioned the description of the state RoI should be used. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

yeah they're editing against policy and guidelines. Protected. Canterbury Tail talk 16:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Rab070 block request

Hi, I'm not sure how this works. However, Teeling Distillery has had a random reference to an online store added several times. First by a user named Fairley Wines (the name of the online store) who is now blocked, and now by Rab070, who I suspect is the same person back again. They the references to the Teeling Article several time, and now I noticed that you reverted a similar edit to the Old Bushmills Distillery. Would appreciate your input, as I'm not sure exactly how that works. CiarraiThiar (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A purely promotional user adding links to their own site was blocked and recreated under another user account. I've blocked the Rab070 for sockpuppetry of a blocked account. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hi Canterbury. Can I ask you to semi-protect the Lisburn and Hillsborough, County Down articles. An IP is edit-warring being vehemently opposed to the Irish form of the names being in the infoboxes despite IMOS and facts and despite another editor engaging discussion to which the IP has ignored including a full response on the issue at the Hillsborough talk page by myself and a warning on their own talk page.

I would suggest sanctioning the IP but they are now using a different IP at Lisburn, so semi-protection from IP editing might be best. Either that or temp block both IPs as the edit summaries make it very easy to see that they are the same person. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support this. I am the editor who has been seeking to engage discussion, I did this in two stages: By asking the user not to revert my edit without discussion, putting this in my edit summary. Then when they edited without the asked for discussion sending a formal request to discuss in each case. Not only is there no response to these formal, first, reqiests, but an edit by another editor has now been reverted without paying any attention to my formal request to discuss. Moreover they are now editing under two different IP addresses. I have asked them to register themselves, which disposes of a possible sock puppetry issue, and to enter into discussion. So I agree with Mabuska that protection from ip editing should be introduced as that would at least require them to register.

Daithidebarra (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Gaff/Eduardo Gaff

Hi - the name "Eduardo Gaff" for Edward James Olmos' Blade Runner character has mainly been circling around fansites, and I'm not sure if it's in any official documentation for the film. However, I did find an article (https://moviepilot.com/p/blade-runner-2049-theory-deckard-is-a-replicant-with-graff-memories/4199141) that extensively refers to him with the first name Eduardo. Would this be a reputable source, or would more digging be necessary? PatTheMoron (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Fansites are most definitely not reliable sources. For something like a name you'd need a pretty much primary source. Since it's not part of, mentioned in or referenced in the movie anything else would be difficult to prove. Even a lot of the unnamed on screen and credits Star Wars characters names are removed as not reliably sourced and that is a set of work with massive written material. Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell

The Answerman source I provided specifies that Manga Entertainment didn't simply distribute Ghost in the Shell for the international market, but that it was also a production partner and financier - the film's credits list Andy Frain, Manga's founder, as an executive producer.

As an aside, the dubbed version was produced by Animaze, an American company. PatTheMoron (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

All that reference provides is Frain was involved. Executive Co-Producer is a nothing credit, typically a bought or losely involved credit. "Frain bought his way into the production committee as a co-executive producer, offering the ability to release the film worldwide simultaneously." This is distrubition rights, not being involved as an active production unit so that's not a good reference to support that. Basically you'd need a UK production company listed in the credits, people's nationalities don't count for country of film, only the nationality of the production company itself. I have a feeling that I'm wrong on this and you're quite correct, but I can't lay my hands on my copy of the film for some reason, it seems to have gone walkabouts. Canterbury Tail talk 01:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Found it. Apologies I am wrong. Manga Entertainment is indeed listed as the production company in the official credits in the UK version. Canterbury Tail talk 02:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Should I provide my DVD copy of the film as a reference for the co-production credit, or can I use the sources I originally provided? PatTheMoron (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've restored your original edits that I removed. Looking into it more I think they'll be fine unless someone else questions them. Again apologies.

The reason this came up is that people have discovered that often the BFI website isn't the best for countries. They have a tendency to list films as British simply because they were filmed there, have a British director or a British company did something after release like an English dub or sub. As a result many editors have become a little wary of their nationality listings. Canterbury Tail talk 12:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit error

I thought the lead character was dead for good even though I didn't see your reason for the revert until now. I am so sorry for that mistake. Leviathan648 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a worry. It's not about the character being dead or not, the actor is in Season 1 & 2 but so are the rest of the main crew. If there is no season 3 then all characters would only be Season 1-2. Wait and see if the character/actor is in Season 3 after season 3 airs completely to make such a determination. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are interested

Hello CT. Thanks for this edit. You might want to pass along the info in your edit summary at this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The Greatest Films aggregate site. Of course, there is no obligation but I thought it would be helpful for those that are looking into this. Cheers and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 01:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

MADHVANI GROUP PAGE

HELLO, I AM ESHAN MADHVANI ESQ, DIRECTOR OF MADHVANI GROUP LTD, I HAVE NOTICED THAT YOU KEEP REMOVING MY EDITS YOU ARE THEN TELLING ME THAT I AM DISRUPTING WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT AS A DIRECTOR I AM EDITING THIS HONESTLY, THESE ARE ALL REAL AND IMPORTANT MEMBERS, IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ME PLEASE LOOK AT OUR CORPORATE MAGAZINE AS WELL AS OUR COMPANY WEBSITE www.kakirasugar.com OUR NAMES ARE FEATURED IN THE GROUP MAGAZINE.

BEST REGARDS. ESHAN MADHVANI ESQ. Mewtwo5151 (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to prove they're important and relevant to the company, not to the family. As a result you should provide references that they are important members of the company, and also other people who are not family members. The article is about the company not the family. Also, please note that people won't take you seriously if you type in all caps, it's painful to read your text. Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

hahah

to the above WP:SHOUTING comes to mind.

As to Dongara - we do not add country for self evident titled 'Western Australia' and 'south australia' places - and we have a serious problem with Perth Australia (there is more than one which makes it absurd) all governed by social media logarithms who couldnt give a codswallop.

As to the edit - I see your intent, simply have removed the 'Perth' so that the qualifying state shows - there's another one - we have enthusiasts who seem to think 'primacy' is the greatest - so removing qualifying state name is a sport for them, sigh... JarrahTree 00:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I must confess I didn't look closely at the title just the content. All good. Canterbury Tail talk 11:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up my ham-handed editing of the Apollo 11 article. Almostfm (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh it's not a problem, mistakes happen and there was nothing malicious about it, just an accident. Canterbury Tail talk 19:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Ben W Bell Choya 05 June 2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ben W Bell Choya 05 June 2007.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 in section F6 of the 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. Kelly ^hi! 13:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure why I need to provide a fair use rationale for a photo I took myself and originally held copyright for before releasing it under CC. Can you explain? Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

11 years of adminship, today

Wishing Canterbury Tail a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Mz7 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

11 years - whooosh where does the time go. Happy Anniversary CT. MarnetteD|Talk 22:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

73.100.38.72

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

Please consider revoking TPA. General Ization ^Talk 01:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Already  Done.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Vermilion College

You have writen libel remarks on edits to the Vermilion College page and accused the page/editors of marketing throught is page. However by definitiona and guidlines your edits have reverted to articles that provided false information. After it was apparent this was going to become an edit war, the page was redesigned following the general WIKI guidelines for colleges. However instead of examining the page, the page was incorrectly tagged and the editor suffered libel remarks based on this tag. Provide sited information, or specific examples before mass edits and remove all site tags accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.bennett54729 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

So, the question here is what is your connection to Vermilion College? The page was tagged as possibly having a conflict of interest with yourself as an editor as it appears you have an undeclared connection to the college. The material you are putting on the page do indeed appear to be more about promoting the college rather than providing an encyclopaedic article. Do also be aware of the Wikipedia policy on making remarks using words like libel at No Legal Threats. It also appears, as you've been warned before, that some of your edits have been lifted from the college website and posted to the Wikipedia article in violation of copyright rules (see WP:COPYVIO). Finally I am not the only editor who thinks the article is full of promotional material. Others have removed much of that copyrighted content and non-encyclopaedic blatantly promotional content. Wikipedia is not the place to promote an entity, it is a neutral encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 20:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

UserPage Vandalism

I see your userpage has been vandalised 73 times (from your notice) if any potential vandalism is spotted would you like it removing? --MJ500 Fancy a coffee? 03:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

No it's fine thanks. It's low level enough I can manage it myself. And if it ever gets too much I can protect the page. Canterbury Tail talk 11:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your time. ----MJ ^{Fancy a coffee?} 02:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Really?

For an editor to go directly from a minor content dispute, a comment on an ANI case and irritable interaction on the talk page of an editor, to directly edit an article about that editor? BLP policy basically says that you should't pursue a dispute in that way. I pinged you (as the last admin to interact with said editor) to avoid getting personally involved which again seems a more than reasonable way forward - not a heavy handed intervention. Sorry but on this one I think we disagree ----Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea that article is about yourself, and am not sure how I was supposed to know that. Even so, the edit was a mild edit and while there may have been some connection in getting to the article (now that you point it out) I still don't see it as clear vandalism. Slightly mischevious at best. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The BLP point is that after three disputatious interactions with me as snowded, the editor went to an article about me (Dave Snowden) to remove material. BLP policy says that should not happen which is why I warned him. Both of the wikipedia articles that relate to me as a person are subject to periodic vandalism and/or the purist of disputes on or off wikipedia. The clear instruction is not to engage yourself but pull on am admin if it happens. It may be academic anyway catching up on Black Kite's call ----Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed typo

Do you ever get the feeling there is a concerted campaign to change Londonderry to Derry by an outside organisation especially considering Wikipedia is such a useful propaganda tool? Far too coincidental for so many different IP editors over the past while to keep appearing out of nowhere and using the exact same edit summary. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I do and have thought so for quite some time. There are so many recent "fixed typo" comments regarding it it's suspicious. However they only ever do one at a time. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Croatian Air Force and Air Defence

Where is the Zlin 242 plane? You have a picture of that plane in your article of Croatian Air Force and Air Defense and you do not know what we have in Croatia from a plane ... PC-9 "Electronic Warfare plane" lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.250.247 (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? I think you may have mistaken me for someone else who knows about that article. My only ever edit was to add a request for a citation. Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert Torrens (economist)

Not really happy about the links in the first sentence, there's a lot of them - Sorry, but I don't understand why you think this might be (or is) a problem. I'd appreciate it if you'd expand on why you think this might be a problem. Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Having the main article title wrapped in blue links on either immediate side looks very weird. Not sure if we should link to Colonel. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician, 1RR and C. S. Lewis

Are these two a breach of his outstanding 1RR? [12] [13]

Trivial stuff from anyone else, but this is Apollo and right back to his core fixations. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

He's only done one revert so not it's not a violation. He did remove the 1RR notice I put on his talk page and I've reinstated it as he incorrectly assumed it no longer applied. Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

James Ibold

Hi Canterbury Tail, I saw you made a statement that James Ibold had nothing to do with an album titled Shades Of Blue. Are you refering to a compilation album recorded and produced by Larry Goshorn?64.134.174.195 (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

On the article page the album Shades of Blue is listed as an album he worked on, and it has a reference. Unfortunately that reference makes no mention of James Ibold so it's not support the inclusion of the album in that section. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello,I am a Korean Japanese.I'm living in Newzealand now,summer overseas training

As i noticed that There is an account under Japanese name that is editing articles on Korean history, modifying the historical truth.If you block me and modify the historical truth of Korea,i will officially protest about that.Because i'm a proffesor in Northeast Asian History Foundation in South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAthegreatest (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That's nice. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, regardless of their nationality or what name they edit under, so that is no reason to revert someone. If you revert someone you must provide a reason for the reversion. If you revert referenced text to another version you must provide references to support the version you are going to. Being blocked is something entirely in your control. If you edit Wikipedia in a civil manner, discuss the edits on the appropriate article talk page and comment on the edits not the editors you'll be fine. If you revert referenced material to unreferenced versions or change edits just because you don't like another editors then you'll be blocked as being disruptive to the project. It's in your control. Canterbury Tail talk 18:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

About User:Satoshi Kondo

Hello.I think that you fully understand User:Satoshi Kondo did distortion of history.And I just corrected historical distortion.I don't understand why you have complaints.Gaya and Backje are Koreanic counties.But he tried to remove the contents.I'm a proffesor in the university.I don't have biased historical awareness.Thank you.USAthegreatest (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You missundertand me

You said "you don't like another editors" but I like editors who contribute and are interested in history.If you check what User:Satoshi Kondo edited, you can see this user tried to modify the historical trues. Gaya and Backje and Goguryo are Koreanic country and every Korean studnets learn about this.User:Satoshi Kondo tried to say that they are not koreanic languages.USAthegreatest (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I told you that i did't edit war.I said that user satoshi kondo did distortion of history and I just corrected historical distortion.I did't do any edit war and vandalism.As i said I'm 57 years old man and you missunderstand me.If you check what satoshi kondo edited, you will know that.Backje and goguryo and yemek culure and Gaya are well known that they are Korean history.Why do you keep acting like this?I setted up the link.I really don't understand why you are so complaning about this.You know My english is not good.So i feel like i'm threatened by you.Thanks.If you want to contact me,tell me.I know you can speatk Japanese fluently.It's very nice.USAthegreatest (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello CT. I wanted to let you know that the editor making all these posts on your talk page has been blocked after a checkuser. I wanted to let you know before you took time trying to make any replies. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We all suspected this was a returning editor, but thanks for closing the loop with me on it. Have a good one. Canterbury Tail talk 11:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome and enjoy the rest of your weekend :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Red Hand

The editing block on this article is due to expire in a matter of days and despite posting reasonings, questions and then posting updates of the work in progress in my sandbox at Talk:Red_Hand_of_Ulster#Latest_work_in_progress, Eireabu has failed to engage once despite being directly pinged several times. I assume I will be justified in amending the article to the latest work in progress (dated 23rd August) posted at the talk page considering there has been no objections to it?

Also Maghera might need semi-protected at some point over the usual naming issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it doesn't exactly mean consensus, but if they are not engaging in a conversation they are aware of as going on then you can go forward. They are aware of it, have been informed many times and said they'd take part so <shrug>. Go ahead. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)