User talk:Ewen

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Ewen}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

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

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

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

I see you've been here a while, and should have been welcomed earlier, but better late than never!

Again, welcome!  -- JHunterJ 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tetrachlorocuprate (ii).png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Innocent victim of collateral damage Request handled by: AnnH ♫ 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address you have blocked is for Swansea College. We have a few idiots here who might vandalise wikipedia. They can be identified. The rest of us, IMHO, are fairly decent folk who would like to contribute. Ewen 14:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that articles can be AfD'd any number of times. In this case I simply decided that there was sufficient evidence of bad faith in the second nomination (opened by a likely sockpuppet account less than 7 days after a previous AfD) to close it early. You are correct that my removal of the image whilst closing the AfD was a mistake.

I still don't think that the rock climb reference is necessary. Unless it can be definitively shown to be linked to the magazine then it is a long way off-topic for an article on the magazine. There is only really need for disambiguation is someone decides to write an article on the climb.

My only advice for intense debates is to try to stay calm. If someone on wiki really annoys me I try to stop myself from posting right away—things like AfDs last a few days, so there is time to stop and consider the situation. —JeremyA 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments today, and the additional cleanup to my edits. I hope the Twikker article grows healthily. The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children. L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewen, just a few tips on referencing. the <ref name=blahblah> is best used when you're referencing the same source more than once.

• If you are just referencing a source the once, use <ref>[url goes here [SPACE] name of article here], description, author, date extra info etc</ref>
• If you are using a source more than once, use <ref name=blahblah>[url goes here [SPACE] name of article here], description, author, date extra info etc</ref> the first time, and <ref name=blahblah/> for all the other times.

Just a few hints! The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children. L.J.Skinner_WOT? 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too. Then something went oddly wrong with the refs on the Twikker page and I tried naming them. That sorted it. Now it's happy without the names so I'm back to agreeing with your point again. Go figure! BFN Ewen 06:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Twikker1991.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're dead right. The author gave me a better version of the image which is currently used on Twikker. Image:Twikker1991.png can be deleted as Image:Twikker_1991.png is better. Ewen 15:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.50.243.94 06:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure did 8-) Ewen 06:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't know the two were interchangeable. As gm (for g) was definitely incorrect, I also targeted mL, which I considered incorrect due to encountering l, ml, μl, etc. more often in text books and papers. In my opinion, consistency is probably the best option. Mushin^talk 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to put another view across that many people express about the IB Programe. I didnt post it to cause controversey. I have a friend who was trying to get into medical school and they turned him down because he was taking IB, He then openly admitted to the school taht eh would have rather done the ALevel program! Hope this helps!

I'd say a one-off case is not the reason to generalise like you did. I know students who have had offers from medical schools on the basis of their IB course. Was your friend studying two sciences at Higher Level? If not, then he/she/the tutor chose the wrong subjects for a prospective medical student - something which can happen for A-levels as well.

Could you define or quantify 'many people'? I've literally not met anyone who reckons that the IBDP is inferior to A-levels. quite the opposite.

Ewen 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm butting in on a conversation that finished 6 months ago, but I'm hoping to apply to study Medicine using the IB, and I was wondering what the reason the university gave to your friend for not offering a place was. Thanks, ::..SMI..:: (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment in this section was by User:Zombiboy, not me. Universities do all sorts of odd things when making offers, so the best advice is always to talk to the universities you're considering. Sometimes they make unfair offers to IB students either because they don't understand the IB or because they don't want IB students for some reason (I've heard it suggested that rejecting IB students is a means to increase the proportion of state school students they accept, since the IB is more often taught in private schools).

Basically, ask the universities and good luck!

Ewen (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks a lot ::..SMI..:: (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! How many words can you make from (changing) a single letter?

Interesting! I've always used Barbeque! But after reading your user page I'm convinced... at least for use in such locations as wikipedia. Yendor of yinn (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading, YoY. I try to use my 'barbeque' edits to make other improvements to articles. A bit like finding a brown M&M. Ewen (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect other forms of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Thank you. Changing "barbeque" to "barbecue" Andrew_pmk | Talk 09:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the spelling policy but I didn't think it would be problem changing the spelling from 'Barbeque' (which is not the prefered version in any version of English, and is not listed in the OED (British) or Webster's (American) dictionaries) to 'Barbecue', which is the prefered/only version in all versions of English.

Maybe I'm wrong about the spelling in other countries but I have actually checked.

Ewen 09:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your commentary on your user page uncivil towards myself and CJ. Please think about editing it (ref WP:CIVIL. Alex Sims 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewen, You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the Barbecue, Barbeque, or BBQ. It's nice to see a committed editor but this is not a great area for you to spend your editing time. I note others are picking you up on this also. I have had to revert one or two of your edits - for example illScarlett where the reference (please check) itself refers to BBQ = Barbeque, or where the local use of the word is not Barbecue. Perhaps it will help if you read Wiki's own article Barbeque or if you prefer Barbecue and you will see that they are the same article. Then if you go to the talk page you will see that others have discussed the variations of the word. In the meantime please do not adjust the spelling in any other articles when there is not a direct reason to do so.--VS ^talk 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC) PS I support Alex Sims request that you consider adjusting your user page to not reflect your disagreement in the way that you have.[reply]

I was trying not avoid being personal, but I thought it worth noting as a point of fact that other people had views on the matter. Sorry if this caused offence but I can't see why it would.

Yes, I have a bee in my bonnet about it. As I said on my user page, there is actually a policy that recommends using spellings, if possible, which are common to all versions of English. Is this not a direct reason to change the spelling, so that people searching for 'Barbecue' find every relevant article?

I also pointed out that I have read Talk:Barbecue, and noted that Barbeque is simply a redirect to Barbecue - the prefered spelling.

Thanks for taking the time to ask about the matter.

Ewen 13:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people on Wikipedia seemed to be militarily of the opinion that because "barbeque" can be used in Australia, it should be, and will revert any efforts to use the preferred spelling, "barbecue". I chose to allow this rather than get into an edit war. You can point out people's mistakes, but you can't always get them to admit to them.

DOSGuy 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I appreciate your enthusiasm but I would suggest removing other editors' details from your front page because that will make your research look less than a personal confrontational with those people. I would also ask that you take on board the fact that people around the world - spell this item in different ways - so there is no absolute correctness or absolute commonality except perhaps in various regions but with respect even in the United States the word is spelled in a variety of ways. Indeed in the interests of accuracy regarding your personal discourse I must note that in fact my copy of the US Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary provides both barbecue and barbeque as alternative spellings. Additionally this fact can be found on-line here Cheers--VS ^talk 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Webster reference, duly noted; but the entry is for 'Barbecue' with 'Barbeque' as an alternative. That doesn't read like an equal footing to me. And as I say; one spelling is universally accepted and the other isn't - so why use the controversial spelling? Ewen 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the changes to your user page. Spelling is an area of great concern on Wikipedia - and I don't want to get into a long discourse on this matter other than to say barbeque is accepted as an appropriate alternative in the wiki community. Indeed there are far more serious errors abounding the pages across English Wiki and you would get enormous respect and plaudits of appreciation from your fellows if with your eye for such detail you helped clean up the really dirty spelling that abounds. That's just a suggestion - but whatever you do keep editing, stay civil, don't lose heart. --VS ^talk 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me an example or two and I'll go after them with extreme prejudice. 8-) Ewen 14:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

barbeque is _only_ accepted by _some_ people as an appropriate alternative in the wiki community. I must agree with Ewen here: barbecue is correct in all 'versions' of English, while barbeque is not. Therefore I consider barbecue the recommended spelling and all variations should be changed accordingly imho. Van der Hoorn 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the example given above, illScarlett, a Canadian band, the reference cited gives BBQ and the external link on the same page gives 'barbecue'. Neither uses barbeque. -- roundhouse0 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, roundhouse! Ewen 13:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for modifying your user page. However I think you need to make a real contribution through research. A bot could easily make the hundreds of changes you are making manually. If you think it is useful then please go down that path. I do not think you are taking WP:ENGVAR to heart, and should cease changing perfectly acceptable (and correct) Australian English. Please also read WP:3RR it is the fourth revert that will have you suspended (which is a silly course of action). Alex Sims

Because you starting the reverting process I think it's you who would be suspended first. I thought I'd mention it before it happened.

I'll look into a bot, thanks for the suggestion. However, I'm not sure it would avoid changing trade names and it wouldn't have a look at other issues on the same page.

'Barbecue' is also perfectly acceptable and correct Australian English, so why do you find it necessary to change it?

Having read WP:ENGVAR I noticed that it recommends using words, if they exist, where the spelling is common to all varieties of English. That excludes 'barbeque' which is not acceptable in British English and is a minority spelling elsewhere (as Macquarie states).

Ewen 09:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cease editing Australian articles for the time being? Alex Sims 09:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK; solely to avoid being provocative. I stand by the points I made above, though. Ewen 09:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen edits have been made on the Fadden, Australian Capital Territory article since the start of this year; nine of these have occured in the last three days over the spelling of "barbeque/barbeque". Perhaps we should all find something more useful to contribute to the article?WA Burdett 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SwanseaCollegeLogo2.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Alert. I think I've justified the inclusion - what do you think?

Can I draw your attention to Image:Gorseinonlogo.gif? It's where I found the licensing and I think it's similarly lacking in rationale.

Ewen 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that, like myself, you recently reverted the addition of what I would call sensitive information about his family, specifically the names of his children. I was wondering what your exact reasons were. I will say that mine were basically for the above reason - that the information is sensitive, and potentially increases their vulnerability, and is encyclopedically unnecessary given that the article exists to testify to his notability as a football referee. He is not considered notable for producing children or naming them X and Y as far as I know, so the extra info is irrelevant, in my view.

Your thoughts? Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's under Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names isn't it? "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." The names do not add significant value so their privacy is more valuable than the trivial matter of knowing their names.

Your admonition was 'please do not identify minors by name!' - I'm not sure if there's a specific policy on that but it seems a good rule to follow. I wonder if UK child protection law or press guidelines have anything relevant on the matter?

Ewen 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's difficult to go about quoting country-specific privacy and child protection laws, as you'll understand, due to the global nature of the Wikipedia machine. And whilst the "Privacy of names" policy appears to be in place to discourage the annoyance of the subjects of the articles, I would suggest that the potential compromising of minors safety is a much more serious matter. Which is why I state such an ethos forthrightly whenever I revert such edits (thankfully, not that often). A policy specifically covering that facet would be useful (I've looked for one, but not found one as yet). Anyway, thanks for the input. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Look, I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Betws is not part of Ammanford (there's a river between the two). I could give some very precise references for Terry's address but I'm not sure he'd want this personal data posted so prominently. As you said, you don't know the area. I live here. I appreciate the situation is confusing but believe me, many people use 'Ammanford' as shorthand for this whole area which is why so many references give it as his home town. Ewen 11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont doubt the information is correct, I would wouldnt be surprised in you know Terry very well and I am sure what you are saying in correct and he lives in Betws - however, the two references say he lives in Ammanford. Wiki works on verifability not truth - please read WP:V. If you can get a source per WP:RS that counteracts the two existing sources then I would be happy to look at them. regards--Vintagekits 11:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is duplicated from User_talk:Vintagekits#Terry_Magee and I will continue it there, not here.

Ewen 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Magnesium in biological systems (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, well good start at least. I reckon that you might like to consider the human health section as a higher level section. It may well end up with quite a lot of its own subsections as time goes on. Reveldrummond 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad you noticed that it was just a start. There's plenty to do still but I haven't had time to merge sections on a sentence-by-sentence level; and you're probably right about raising the prominence of the human health section. I'll have a look when I can but I'm hoping that by then someone else will have moved the project forward ;-) Ewen 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on my discussion page. I am glad that we agree about the tag. The reason I knew the presumptive test lacked context was because I'm not an expert in the subject, and I couldn't grasp quite what field was even being discussed (apparently it's medical and forensic science.) As I think most people would agree, an article should generally make sense to non-experts. Though I'd say the article could still use further clarification, I'll leave the work to an expert. So in summary, not knowing the subject doesn't mean I can't plainly see that it lacks context. I'm sure you'd rather have somebody qualified taking care of the article's actual content than have a baffled general reader grope in the dark for an answer, right? 66.28.71.162 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SwanseaCollegeLogo2.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's worth setting up a Digestion (disambiguation) page? Particularly given this? WLU 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Go for it! If you don't start it, I will... Ewen 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome. DAB pages are a pain in the ass since I'm usually ill-informed of the topic and don't know how to differentiate them. Since you seem so knowledgeable regards precipitates, I'm sure the rest will be a breeze for you. *dusts hands, looks for further opportunities to delegate* WLU 18:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification, on the page on personality psychology, the difference between two types of factor analysis - orthogonal and oblique. I do like the word "orthogonal" and I fear that I may have inserted the confusing English for the non-expert. ACEOREVIVED 19:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Twikker 1991.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale now provided. OK? Ewen (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the UK I have found it to the widely used, officially recognised usage.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the UK (not that far from Shane Williams, as it happens), I have not often noticed it. Perhaps you could provide a reference?

Besides, wikipedia has a policy on these matters: Do not append an s for the plurals of unit symbols (kg, km, in, lb, not kgs, kms, ins, lbs).

Ewen (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to read 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) is the convert to use for a UK based player as your edits aren't giving out the right details. Also 5 ft 11 in (180 cm) should be in m for France, only Australia use cm to measure human height.Londo06 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem with the convert template but {{convert|6|ft|4|in|m|sigfig=3}} (i.e. 6 feet 4 inches (1.93 m)) works too. Ewen (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question of aesthetics rather than the units themselves. Is it necessary to link these on the infobox, it does look quite garish. There is also the question of Overlinking#Overlinking as a number of rugby union articles are fairly short.Londo06 15:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, y'know you can change it if you want... If the RU articles are short, perhaps they need lengthening? Ewen (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.Londo06 9:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the spelling of "Barbecue" on the new article I created about Bellerive Yacht Club in accordance with the accepted Wikipedia Standard. My greatest thanks though is actually for drawing my attention to the hilarious debate on the subject talk page! I had no idea people were so passionate about the way it should be spelled, or what for that matter, actually constitutes a barbecue! Just as an interesting aside, although I was aware of the two main alternative spellings, having grown up in Tasmania I think we pretty exclusively spell it "Barbeque", and I had assumed the spelling with the 'c' was an Americanisation. I now stand corrected. I will also draw your attention to the internationally successful company, 'Barbeques Galore'[1] who chose to use the spelling with the 'q'. For me personally, it doesn't really matter either way, although I think I have always though it to be correct with the 'q' in the past. On a final note, I just went out onto the patio to double check, and the label on my rather cheapo brand one refers to it as a barbeque. English is in constant flux after all... So long as the meat is well cooked I will be happy! Robert Fleming (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Good message - made me laugh! It should be a trivial issue but too many people got too irate over the matter. Ewen (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Edge STP, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Dgtsyb (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did however hit the nail on the head, TIME. It takes a lot of time to search for sources and to add them in-line. The whole point of the tag is to get others to come and help out by making them aware that it needs to be done. Also a little advice instead of posting rather rude comments why don't you start looking for the sources????81.111.119.98 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found a source rather quickly, you might have noticed. Probably about as much time as it would take to tag the article - Especially if I'd taken the time to specify which facts needed citation. Sorry, but making the effort to add citations for one college and then slapping a vague and unflattering tag on another smacks of bias. Ewen (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the tag has worked. All facts need to be cited unless they are common knowledge and requests have been placed on the article in specific sections. Users add information on topics that they have knowledge on not ones they don't, I have no knowledge of Swansea College otherwise I'd add in-line citations. Bare in mind that tags are placed to improve an article. I must admit you are acting rather bizarrely to a tag being placed on an article. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would bear it in mind except that going from improving the Gorseinon College article you go on to tag the Swansea College one in a vague and unhelpful way. Why not concentrate on improving the numerous unsupported facts on Gorseinon's page and having a look at the spelling and grammar there while you're at it? Ewen (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it has improved the article then it is not unhelpful, secondly as I have said there were tags on specific sections and all facts unless they are common knowledge ought to have a citation. To repeat myself again users add information on topics that they have knowledge on and that is what I've done. Further if you do not understand where citations are needed the tag has links on it to relevant pages to guide you. If you feel there are sections on any article that need to be cited then add the {{|fact}} tag (removing the | off course). I does seem to me that you have ownership issues over the swansea college page and I suggest you take some time away from the page rather than confronting people on quite trivial issues. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I've added discussion points to the talk page for this article. In my view some of the newest edits still violate the WP:NPOV. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Hi Ewen, Thanks for the warm welcome. I am new to wiki and not very experienced with this type of forum in general, so I appreciate any advice you can give me. Do not hesitate to correct me if I make an faux pas or breaches of wiki etiquette. There seems to be a lot more rules here than other sites, but it also helps to keep the discourse civil. I will check out the tutorials.La mome (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs) [reply]

Both you and TFWOR gave me advice and links on how to proceed regarding complaints I made about ObserverNY. I do not have a history with her, despite what she says and you may believe. I just don't have patience for that type of behavior and she seems to hinder more than help. She was gently warned by several editors, including yourself, but continues to push her own agenda. I thought that the wikiquette approach was the least offensive (and the easiest to understand), unless that is what you meant by not the best approach. I didn't have the time nor the inclination to handle each offense separately (NPOV, COI, etc...) If she is charging consulting fees, then trying to add TAIB over and over again is clearly a COI and that paired with her obviously biased POV seems to me grounds for banning her from editing any IB site on wikipedia. But, if I am the only one that sees it that way, then I'll back off. La mome (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think now she's dropped the attempts to include TAIB that COI is not really an issue. Her edits do all follow a pattern of representing her minority POV but I think that the attention of other editors can prevent this being a problem. On a more positive note, she's added one or two points which are valuable and she certainly has raised the standard of referencing the material that is quoted, with much more coming from sources independent of the IB.

Ewen (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite disappointed you haven't had a hissy fit with me like ObserverNY. ;) --Candy (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to keep abreast of the IB DP article and dispute resolution. Just for the record, the article as it currently stands is fine with me. I also only have "hissy" fits when someone with a clearly feminine name calls me "sexist" for using the word "her". ObserverNY (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Hi there! I came across the page for Krebiozen you'd reconstructed about a year-and-a-half ago, and after satisfying my curiosity on the subject, my attention was drawn to a tag early in the article:

It is claimed^[who?] that Krebiozen, originally called substance X, came from horses inoculated with Actinomyces bovis by Dr. Stevan Durovic.

After examining it more carefully, I'd concluded that this was an instance of a dangling participle and the statement should read:

It is claimed by Dr. Stevan Durovic that Krebiozen, originally called substance X, came from horses inoculated with Actinomyces bovis.

...but while I was checking out the page history to determine when the 'Who/avoid weasel words' tag was applied, I began to have doubts; it is possible that the intent was to say that Dr. Durovic was the person inoculating the horses. So I did not feel confident and CERTAIN enough to simply change the sentence outright. A little more digging showed that your smithed this when you re-stared the page in December '07, and I thought it best that I at least check with you on what you could say on the subject.

Now, I fully realize you likely can't remember your intentions when writing a single sentence out of the vast amount that you've probably written in the past eighteen months, but any ideas or suggestions you can provide would be, if nothing else, comfort to me on a trivial matter. :) Thanks in advance! Empath (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the quackwatch article and it clarifies the matter. My dangling participle caused some ambiguit which I've now repaired. Thanks for checking! Ewen (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewen, I think it would be nice for you to pop round to keep an eye on what's been unleashed over at IB DP. Not a happy wiki editor at the moment! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TK88

I've been lurking for a while. Very busy with other work (that I'm paid for!) so no time to engage with the minutiae of the IBDP debate. My quick scans have seemed to show a robust, but not too vicious, argument.

I'll keep an eye on the admins' cogitations and weigh in if I think it apt. I'm not any sort of judge or jury here - nor would I want to be - but I've tried to keep on speaking terms with all sides so my views might be worth something.

Thanks for all your efforts. There's no doubting your positive effect on this, and many other, wikipedia articles.

Ewen (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I like working on Wikipedia and currently have a small bit of time to devote to copyediting. For the most part it's extremely rewarding.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewen. Can you help with the archiving on the IB DP talk page? Thanks.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sage advice is needed at International BaccalaureateObserverNY (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

It's almost the end of August and the discussion that started in May is still ongoing. So far you, Candorwien, Cinchbug, TFOWR and myself have all bowed out of working on the IB Diploma Programme article. In my view, when so many editors fall away, something is seriously awry. Any suggestions as how to handle this situation? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns. Frankly, I was more interested in trying to resolve the disputes than editing so I decided to drop out when UncleG reminded us that's what we should be doing. I wouldn't say it's anybody's fault but just something that I was happy to leave with other people. Ewen (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Uncle G admonished us, I tried to very hard to focus on the article, regain the plot, etc., but it is impossible to edit the article without dispute. So, what to do now? Perhaps I should consider leaving it with others as you have. Certainly there's plenty to do on Wikipedia without working on this one article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't let people win arguments simply by waffling everyone else into submission! I'll try to re-engage but as I won't have time to read the huge backlog of Talk Archives I'll just have to hope I don't disinter any old debates. Ewen (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same debates crop up again and again so not keeping up with the discussion isn't too important. This however involves a !vote and might be worth consideration. As for the IB editors, my sense is that everyone has thrown in the towel, so to speak. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I truly cannot do this anymore. Apparently I'm just a bad editor. I should never ever have cleaned up the cite mistakes in the first place and I should never ever have become involved in this article. I've unwatched everything, just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (I started writing this on ONY's page, and then I realized it would just be blanked anyway)

Ewen, I am sadly aware of the offensiveness that exists on wikipedia-

"Hey, thanks for the apology. I appreciate that. But, I see that LaMome is incapable of accepting information on IB that she hasn't personally approved. It's obnoxious, I tried adding respectable content without getting into a tit-for-tat drawn out futile discussion and clearly, that is not allowable as long as she is an editor on the IB articles. Ciao again. If you want to let the IB-nazi rule the day, so be it." ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I am beginning to see a disturbing pattern. If everyone else is ok with it, then so be it.

La mome (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're at the Godwin's Law stage of the conversation. Too bad. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Godwin's Law! Except LaMome went and proved my "IB-nazi" allegation by attempting to censor my comment on the IBDP Talk page, now didn't she? Thanks to HelloAnnyong for having editing integrity. ObserverNY (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Truthkeeper - you know, you're not a 'bad' editor. You have a much better breadth of knowledge of Wikipedia html than the average bear. If what you say is true and you just happened upon the IB articles in the course of regular editing, you stumbled into a political hornet's nest. IB is a highly politically charged issue, in the U.S. and the U.K. You have consistently sided with the IB majority and bought into "certain" editors' agendas. And I am the lone editor who wants the certain FACTS to be made known, (even if they might not be all roses) about this organization and program. Look how you and Candorwein fought me tooth and nail on clearly spelling out the cost of the program. And Cost doesn't even have political connotations to it! Talk about exhausting! Ewen had composed a decent section and then you and Candy slashed it to threads. Look how I had to fight tooth and nail to include Dr. Thomas Sowell's quote in Reception. So you can go swat yourself with a cat-o-nine tails, I sense a Jewish ancestor somewhere in your heritage who has made you feel such guilt, (and I was raised by Jewish parents so don't be calling me an anti-Semite). I too start work soon - a new job as a school photographer, and I'm really looking forward to it. But I think you need to understand that the United States is reaching critical mass. History is being made and there has NEVER been this sort of anger, discontent and fear of our government as there is now. Watch Glenn Beck on 9/12 (it should be broadcast online). Look for me. I'll be there. ObserverNY (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Talk about flawed logic. So my attempt at removing your anti-Semitic post makes me a Nazi?! La mome (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nazis first disarmed the public, then censored them. You have endeavored to have me banned, then censored. See how your behavior mimics that of a fascist dictator? And LaMome, it isn't MY anti-Semitic post if it is a reporting of offensive anti-Semitic/Christian behavior by Muslims. If anything, you might consider it an anti-Islamofascist post. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

"I am the lone editor who wants the FACTS" What utter bollocks! Ewen (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on Ewen, see correction above. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

The problem has always been that you only want "certain facts", and those happen to be the facts on your website. If you don't get your way you beat the other editors into submission. As for the allegations: on June 23rd you called the UK section "biased" here which is why it was cut back. The discussion on cost lasted most Archive 5 here, the problem wasn't that you wanted to add costs (which are still in the article) but the manner in which you wanted to add costs and the manner in which you try to synthesize sources. These are only two examples, but notable that both costs and IB in the UK are on the TAIB website, and as such, in my view you've been using wikipedia to move material from your website to here. Furthermore, my sense is that somebody told you that would be fine, not realising the chaos that would ensue. My mistake was to rework the sections you've written so they're readable and to reformat your cites according to wiki standards. I should have stood back and done nothing (as Ewen has done). Once the admins were involved I wanted to redeem myself, and with painstaking work have at least attempted to add the history section, but truly when editors are being impugned and Godwin's Law in in full effect it really is time to step away.

Apologies to Ewen for taking up space on his user page, but this a conversation that's long overdue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TK- Your opening sentence reveals your misguided opinion. Whether 'facts' about IB appear on our website or not is irrelevant. The 'facts' are retrieved from verifiable sources. The aggressive assault and desire to suppress by editors LaMome and Tvor65, supported by yourself, against the inclusion of 'certain facts' I sought to include to provide WP:NPOV and balance to an article, inevitably leads to controversy and warring. How quickly you forget Tvor65's repeated insistence on including the "right-wing" label to political objections to IB. Look to the history. Almost EVERY edit I have ever made has been challenged by LaMome. Even something as simple and what I thought was non-controversial such as the formatting of the Recognition table (which you nicely formatted) was objected to by LaMome and Tvor65 for no credible reason. C'est la vie! ObserverNY (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Hi Ewen,

Could you please visit my talk page, read and comment on my recent section about the IB Diploma Programme.

Many thanks, --Candy (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, join the IB conspiracy plotting to get me banned Ewen! Hurry! I had the AUDACITY to change the words " must attend" to "must be enrolled in" and LaMome reverted it which resulted of course, in a stupid drawn out argument. I'm busy at Van Jones and Glenn Beck if'n yer lookin for me. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

You know, sometimes when the world is against you, you might consider the possibility that democracy is telling you that you're wrong... Ewen (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "world" is not against me, Ewen. I seem to be able to contribute uncontested edits just fine at other extremely contested articles. Go see the edits LaMome tried to make last night. The woman is a sicko and if you and other editors want to defend and agree with her offensive, aggressive, ornery and antagonistic behavior, you should consider that YOU may be wrong. Kinda like Scotland releasing the Lockerbie bomber for "humane" reasons. Or wait, was it really for an oil deal? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Yeah, like we need lessons from the US about international law and morality. Ewen (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the American families who lost loved ones on that flight along with the 3,000+ families who lost family members in 9/11 because of a deranged terrorist. He should have been taken out and shot to end his miserable life instead of being flown home to Libya for a "hero's" welcome. ObserverNY (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I wonder how you're going to escalate your rhetoric now? Lockerbie, 9-11, what next? Do you really think the harm done to you online is in any way comparable? Ewen (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Harm done to me online"? What on earth are you talking about? I'm just following my President's Czar's orders and using the Internet as a "tool". You know, for social justice. Oh wait, did he mean that only radicals, socialists and Obamamaniacs should be doing that? He probably thinks the rest of us are too stupid to use Facebook and Twitter too! LOL! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Question - what do the (+) or (-) numbers mean on the watchlist page? ObserverNY (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

In answer to all your recent questions: Go figure. Ewen (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I want you to take a look at this talk page: [2] See how nicely I can toss an EXTREMELY hot topic like Van Jones back and forth with normal people? LaMome and Tvor65 are NOT NICE OR REASONABLE PEOPLE. Their very nature is to pounce and attempt to silence. They are closed-minded to ANY suggestions that come from me. Even something as banal as putting the recognition section into table format. They do not operate in good faith. Look what it took to get LaMome to apologize for calling my postings fraudulent. A Supreme Court hearing would have been shorter! Yet in Van Jones, I point out where something was mis-attributed to me and right away, an apology and a correction. That's how NORMAL people act. ObserverNY (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

As you seem to have the wrong end of the stick ObserverNY - let me clarify. My recent talk page request for advice and feedback is not about your edits to the IBDP article - it is about the IBDP talk page and your behaviour. The fact that you are in an edit duel with LaMome is a different issue. It is your other tendacious editing which is at issue. I'm glad you feel you can contribute effectively to other articles. --Candy (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it LaMome isn't the main abuser of tendentious editing and WP:DRAMA when it is SHE who starts every war by deleting my edits? Hmmmm? Then we have to get into this long drawn out back and forth where she pulls WP policy out of her butt to try and castigate me instead of simply reasonably agreeing to the edit, or providing a valid reason why she doesn't agree. Can you explain that? ObserverNY (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Making the rounds: How you treat others is important and should be followed -- by everyone. Maybe it's time to stand down for a while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see ONY has been called for lack of civility on the Van Jones issue... Ewen (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article popped up on my splash page today and I've been following it a bit. Yes, ONY has been called for lack of civility. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leopards... spots... only a matter of time... [sigh] Ewen (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied.
Also, just so you know, your barnstar means a lot to me, but in retrospect, I don't think making those edits was wise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting it again. Your edits were uncommonly good, IMHO. I wish I had your endurance! Ewen (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd call it endurance. Maybe stupidity, or maybe just a very strong desire to finish the history section, focus and regain the plot as Uncle G commanded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying. See here. One of the diffs is from your user page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewen!

Thought I'd drop by to say hello! Also, of course, am wondering whether you've been following the slow edit war over at Upper St. Clair High School? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TK88! I hope all's good with you. I have been following the USC edits but I'm not sure there's much I can add. I'd probably side with Tvor65 over Endogenous -i but it needs picking over point-by-point rather than wholesale reversion.

Ewen (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fine and busy. I did try to work my way through the edits a few days ago, cleaned up the text, reformatted, etc., but then it was reverted. Before trawling through the IB Diploma Programme discussion pages to verify, I wondered whether you remember that we (many of us!) reached consensus on the version that Tvor65 has been reinstating? If consensus was achieved, would that apply all articles? Just wondering. Btw -- glad to see you're still here! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still here, yes! Not much time for involved editing and discussions right now but still doing minor edits whenever I have a moment. I'll have a look through the archives to see if I can find a consensus. I'm not sure we did. All I can remember was moving the detailed account of the controversy to the USC page from the IBDP page. Ewen (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to have a logical discussion, point by point... I have stated my logic, and you simply say, no, without any counter argument or explanation. Please engage in a real discussion. Endogenous -i (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Id like to have a logical discussion, point by point... I have stated my logic" No, you haven't. Nowhere have you explained why anything you want to add is notable, or not the result of original research. All you do to the page itself is revert the whole text you want dumped into the article. Stop doing that. Try to discuss what should be included and let's reach a consensus.

Last post tonight. Nearly 2010 here.

Ewen (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bob Wilsons Barbecue Cookbook.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewen! I have a favor to ask: the IBDP article seems to be slanting a bit US-centric again. I've just added information from a recent New York Times article that finally cites the anti-American complaints, but I think the "Reception" section needs information from other countries. Would you have time to dig up something? I haven't really been following IB news, and I'm busy with other stuff here (I have one article at WP:FAC and I have another that I need to focus on before books have to be returned to the library. Or, do you think it would be best to post directly to the talk page? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, would that be the same NYT article that lists www.truthaboutib.com as a "clearinghouse" for complaints about IB? ~ONY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.38.139 (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ewen - thought you might like to know that the IB DP has been promoted to good article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote IB Diploma Programme to good article status.

Thanks for remembering my little contributions! Well done! Ewen (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tracey Curtis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, little links here, article does not assert notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bonewah (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barrel barbecue 3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barrel barbecue.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barrel barbecue 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barrel barbecue 4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barbeque is not a mispelling. There is no general need to edit Wikipedia from one version of a word to another or to avoid redirects. Rmhermen (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking some of your previous edits, I found you actually introduced mistakes. Lay's are Barbecue flavor but Charles Chips are barbeque. Please check your other edits to make sure there aren't more of these. Rmhermen (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to Roscommon was wrong as well. Rmhermen (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read User:Ewen#Barbecue before changing my edits? Ewen (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you have an opinion. So do other writers on wikipedia and so do the organizers of events specifically called barbeque and the makers of chips actually labelled barbeque. This is not a matter you can dispute. Leave whatever spelling you find and stop adding actual errors. Rmhermen (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, I checked my opinion and yours and yours is wrong. 'Barbeque' is a misspelling in UK English, whereas 'Barbecue' is correct spelling in UK, US and Australian English (the latter two also accept 'Barbeque'). Where an event or organisation uses the 'Barbeque' spelling then I leave it. Same for direct quotations. Ewen (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could look over the above article? I've taken the basic info from that which you added to Betws disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages aren't allowed that level of info, but I didn't want to just delete it. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Aquilonifer spinosus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pastorma (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

In Wisdom of the Idiots you changed:

-- Wisdom of the Idiots is a book of Sufi teaching stories designed to have an impact on the reader using traditional Sufi psychology to

-- Wisdom of the Idiots is a book of Sufi teaching stories designed to influence the reader using traditional Sufi psychology.

If you read Shah's books on Sufi mysticism, you will see that the word "impact" or even "a constellation of impacts" is deliberately and advisedly used on numerous occasions. This is not an intellectual thing, it is provocative, a psychic "shock" to the system, and is not at all the same as the much blunter and less accurate word "influence". This is a technical subject with its own vocabulary, and these are said to be books that are not merely read, but which provoke deep psychological and other change.

I see you reverted me, so I'll have to leave it that.

Regards, Esowteric+Talk _Influence_--_Wisdom_of_the_Idiots" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">21:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not use the verb "shock" instead of the hackneyed verb-phrase "have an impact on"? In my experience, when people create their "own vocabulary" they might not be familiar with the common vocabulary that could be used to discuss the subject with more clarity. Or sometimes clarity is deliberately avoided when an author knows that they are saying nothing new or their argument is weak. Ewen (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at David Wolfe (nutritionist) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I work for a PR agency called Lansons, working on behalf of one of our clients the Pension_Protection_Fund. We’ve reviewed the PPF’s Wikipedia page and have spotted a number of factual inaccuracies that we would like to suggest changes for. We have references for them.

We're engaging as a member of the Wikipedia community having signed the official agency/Wikipedia agreement set out here Wikipedia:Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_participating_communications_firms. This means we adhere to the guidelines, most importantly understanding we have a conflict of interest, meaning we let members of the Wikipedia community decide (or not decide) to make changes for us.

We requested help on the PPF talk page and on the WikiProject Finance group in August, but have unfortunately been unable to find support or gain any form of response. We wondered whether you might be able to help us please?

The first change we would like to suggest is the Chairman of the Pension Protection Fund is changed to Arnold Wagner, who has replaced Lady Barbara Judge. You can find a third-party reference for this announcement here [3]

We would also suggest changing the word ‘pensioners’ in the first sentence to ‘members’ as the PPF doesn’t just protect people who have already retired, but protects 11 million people who belong to defined benefit pension schemes. Almost half of its 225,000 members are ‘deferred’ members who have not yet retired. We would suggest referencing this Government source [4] for the change.

We have also spotted other factual errors, but these are the two main ones for the moment. Thanks. (MichaelPWhite (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, Ewen. 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.

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

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

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

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Potassium acetate does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.

Also, please don't mark an edit as "minor" unless it is a minor edit. See Help:Minor edit. Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... you create the image, I have concerns about the image, and you think I should be the one to fix it? You're the one who created the image, it seems to me that you would be the one able to more easily update and re-upload the image. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... while you do precisely nothing except delete my work you expect me to dance to your tune? Like I said, it was better than nothing - so why worsen the article be deleting the image? And if you're the one with the great ideas about improving the illustration then why not, you know, improve the illustration instead of deleting it? If you'd have been constructive about your criticisms then we could have made a better image that we could both be proud of. <clap> <clap> <clap> Ewen (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you read sarcasm or undue criticism in my earlier note, but clearly you have no interest in being collaborative based on the tone of your reply.

You're the one that created the image, which means (unless you've for some odd reason deleted everything related to it) still have the source files and can (I assume) easily add in a few years to the file. I, on the other hand, have to figure out which fonts you used, which info came from which year, and line everything up making sure not to lose any quality in the entire process. So yes, I would like you to fix your own image, because it will be infinitely easier for you to do it.

I also didn't "delete" the image, and while I know edit summaries aren't the best way to communicate I assumed that you'd see the revert and go "gee, maybe I should add some years" instead of instantly becoming combative. But hey, if you'd rather go with sarcasm, I'm happy to butcher the image in an attempt to make it better. Primefac (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted me to add some years, then why didn't you just say so, instead of removing the image as well? That was the annoying thing - I think the chart was an improvement on nothing, I even agree that it could be better, but an imperfect chart is better than none, right? Yes, it would be easier for me the modify it than for you (Though it's only a graph; How hard can it be?) but in a way you did modify it in the easiest and least helpful way possible, by its 100% removal. Anyway, the "years" idea is not great because the measurements were not reported at regular intervals. There's a graph later in the article File:Recent_Hubble's_Constant_Values.png which doesn't have a proportional time axis either.Ewen (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I made that one. It doesn't have to be a proportional x-axis, but knowing when these values were calculated is important. Did they come every two years? Every twenty years? It's less of an "x-axis" and more of a "label". Primefac (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ewen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your letter.
Your edits were better.
His weren't the "best."
Anyway, give it a rest.
Burma shave! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trumps grammar, indeed. We're talking about 'alternative grammar.' {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ewen, Thank you for correcting my addition to the Peterson Olefination Reaction page. I am Donald J. Peterson's wife of 60 years, Alyce. The personal bio information I posted yesterday was read and approved of by my husband prior to my submitting it. I thought it would be interesting for those reading about his important reaction to also know something about his personal background. He and I are now in our 80's and not as tech savvy with what is acceptable to post so please excuse us if we erred. AHPeterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHPETERSON (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alyce! And greetings to your husband! Thank you for your reply. I'm sure I understand what you are trying to do and I'd be happy to help you. I don't think it's a lack of tech-savvy that is at issue, rather it's the policies and customs of Wikipedia. As you can imagine, people have used Wikipedia to libel public figures, and sometimes people use it for self-promotion. The libel problem has resulted in policies which demand that biographies are thoroughly supported by evidence, and the self-promotion issue lead to policies that try to distance the subject of an article from editing it.

It is helpful to sign and date comments, which Wikipedia makes easy; You just need to add four tildes ~~~~ at the end of each edit.

I think probably this discussion would be better on the talk page for the Peterson reaction, so shall we reconvene there instead?

Ewen (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Albania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ninety-nine Novels, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Body, Heartland and John Ballard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ewen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half lives cannot be measured to 6-digit precision. C.f. carbon-14, a much more abundant isotope where the half-life is given with 3-digit precision. Petergans (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Petergans: That sounds like original research, and the sources back up the six-digit figure. Isn't the C-14 figure limited because of the longer half-life rather than the abundance? I'd prefer to discuss this over at Talk:Polonium-210 Ewen (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I got very frustrated because I could not find the primary source of the very precise value. The many secondary sources that I found were contradictory as to precision. The current WP citation does give all those significant figures, though I am still sceptical about them. What is the primary source that explains such ultra-high precision? A quick look for gamma-ray counters on the web did not reveal one capable of it. Petergans (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Petergans: No, I've not been able to track the original method either. I did gather some circumstantial evidence by looking at the data listed on WP for radioactive half lives. Plotting log(half life) against significant figures on a scatter graph shows a distinct hump. For example, only four values are given with six significant figures: Po-210, V-48, Cr-51 and O-14. The values are 138 d, 27 d, 16 d and 1.2 m. (I'm too lazy to type all the figures!) I think that supports the notion that it is easier to measure a half life if it is a convenient duration. Half lives of kiloyears or milliseconds are tricky, but for different reasons. Ewen (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Petergans: Progress! This review http://www.nucleide.org/DDEP_WG/Nuclides/Po-210_com.pdf looks at the half life values and arrives at 138.3763(17) which is "99%" from the value in (1964EiZZ) J.F. Eichelberger, G.R. Grove, L.V. Jones, MLM – 1209 (1964) 11. Eichelberger et al used calorimetry, apparently. I've not seen the original paper yet. I bet you love the extra precision! Ewen (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original report: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4000108 It's the "MOUND LABORATORY PROGRESS REPORT FOR JULY 1964"

Thank you so much for your efforts. I am not able to read the original reports either. The one thing that caught my attention was the method used by Eichelberger - calorimetry. I've not come across this method of measuring t_1/2 before. It's also frustrating that the WP articles on t_1/2 don't say anything about experimental methods. Nevertheless, I am still not convinced that measurements can be made to such high-precision as to give a value with 6-digit precision. The value of 138.374(32) obtained by α-counting (M.L.Curtis) looks more realistic to me, and has a citable reference. Petergans (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Petergans: No problem. It's been years since I was full-time research but it's good to things keep ticking over with occasional forays into the literature. The https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4000108 link does give the original paper if you click the green download link. They were measuring samples for months, for years in one case, with a calorimeter that could detect changes over a minute time scale. To me, that sounds like it would give the necessary precision. Ewen (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The page Nakota language you are linking to explains in detail how it is not mutually understandable by Lakota and Dakota speakers. The "Nakota" you are probably intending to link to is actually the dialect spoken by the Yankton & Yanktonai branch of the Dakota tribe, also called Western Dakota and erroneously called Nakota. See Dakota language#Dialects. The language spoken by the Assiniboine is not D/Lakota. And just because something is classified by European-American linguist as being part of the same "Siouan" family tree doesn't mean those languages are mutually understood by each tribe. These languages branched off hundreds, if not over a thousand years ago from some ancestral form. It's like saying all West Germanic languages are mutually understandable being in the same family tree, yet a native German or English speaker has no idea what the other is saying.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncamera this would be better discussed on the Talk page for Talk:Lakota_language

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all know they will finish 2nd, so why be so pedantic?! BRACK66 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BRACK66, you know full well they weren't officially second when you edited, so why be so impatient?! Ewen (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Wikipedia mafia. Control freaks. BRACK66 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "quality control". Try it, or just get used to your inaccurate and premature edits being reverted. Ewen (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL BRACK66 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SwanseaCollegeLogo2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Swansea College (established 2021), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ewen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Swansea College (established 2021), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ewen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Swansea College".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re what you did on this diff, I think I put the small text in because it's Snowy White who's heard on the live album, not Andy Roberts. Jules TH 16 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jules TH 16 thanks. I thought it would be something like that but it wasn't clear. Ewen (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feed the trolls! Bruce leverett (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have a source for the quote from the 1999 Budapest call-in. It might be in one of cites you just deleted, but I didn’t find it just now. Unfortunately I am traveling and cannot easily follow up on this, until late this week. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Brigatinib, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]