Revision as of 18:22, 1 October 2013 editBesieged (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,842 edits Warning: Edit warring on Bradford. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:25, 1 October 2013 edit undoBesieged (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,842 edits Notice: Conflict of Interest on Bradford. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | ||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ]<sup><small>]</font></sup></small> 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC) | If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ]<sup><small>]</font></sup></small> 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
] Hello, Bradford4life. We ] your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things ] in the article ], you may have a ] or close connection to the subject. | |||
All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's ] content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by ] and writing with as little bias as possible. | |||
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems: | |||
*'''Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating''' articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. | |||
*'''Be cautious about deletion discussions'''. Everyone is welcome to provide information about ] in ], but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors. | |||
*'''Avoid linking''' to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see ]). | |||
*'''Exercise great caution''' so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies. | |||
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to ], ], and ]. | |||
For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see ]. Thank you.{{#if:| ]<sup><small>]</font></sup></small> 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)}}<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -->]<!-- Template:uw-coi --> ]<sup><small>]</font></sup></small> 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:25, 1 October 2013
Welcome!
|
- Thanks GiantSnowman, my edit about Motherwell fc's strip reads far better this morning lol and if you sorted out my mistake with the new city strip on the bcfc page, thanks once again.Bradford4life (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, nice to see somebody else contributing positively to City's page! GiantSnowman 08:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Frederick W eurich.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Frederick W eurich.jpg, which you've sourced to Leeds.ac.uk. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Bradford do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Sir William Rothenstein.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sir William Rothenstein.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The file is already on wikipedia, here... William Rothenstein Bradford4life (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The file has been on the William Rothenstein wikipedia page for at least two years. Bradford4life (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Chantel McGregor
Hi, sorry I couldn't help in time, was away over the weekend, but glad somebody else fixed it. And yes, great result on Saturday. GiantSnowman 09:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks GiantSnowman. Bradford4life (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit to Bradford
Hello, I have removed your addition about being a powerhouse. I am dubious whether the claim is true (unfortunately I see Leeds being much more dynamic than Bradford), but even if it is, any evaluative claim like this ranks as original research, and is therefore forbidden, unless it is directly backed up by a reference to a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Hi There, Bradford has a much larger manufacturing base than Leeds, Leeds obviously has a large financial base. I'll see if i can reference the Bradford manufacturing claim.Bradford4life (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Colin, I've reworded the insert to make sense of the reference i've used. Leeds City Region Bradford4life (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, but I've removed it again. Calling something a "powerhouse" is peacock language, and is not acceptable unless the term is used in a reliable and independent source: the MIPIM document you have cited is reliable, no doubt, but it is obviously not independent, and so should be used only to support uncontroversial factual data. (I'll be delighted to see work really start on the Westfield site this year, but I'm not holding my breath). --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is, obviously with an economy of 8.3 billion approx Bradford is a powerhouse of the LCR as it is of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Obviously a manufacturing powerhouse just as Leeds if i remember correctly is described on it's wiki page as a financial powerhouse. I'm adding it again. Yes i'm hopeful that Westfield will get started this year but holding your breath regarding this wish would be inadvisable.Bradford4life (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I've just noticed that "power house" is indeed in the brochure you cited - I hadn't found it because I searched for "powerhouse". I still feel that the word is evaluative and promotional, not neutral (which is why I cited WP:PEACOCK and mentioned the non-independence of the source), and so does not belong in the article; but following procedure I'm discussing it rather than reverting you again. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I didn't realise you hadn't noticed the description in the Leeds City Region piece, sorry about that, i should have specified the paragraph, i'd have directed you to it if i'd have known. Maybe get a few other wiki people who haven't got a view to have a look at it as i don't see a problem with the description. I'll leave it with you as i'm not connected with the site other than making edits. I wonder if you could help me regarding a picture or montage being placed in the Bradford box at the top right of the page, i noticed when looking at the Leeds page today that they have a fantastic montage of pictures in the same box at the top right of the Leeds page, was thinking that something similar would look great on the Bradford page, in fact there was a Bradford montage, but it disappeared for some reason. Although i know how to put pictures on the actual Bradford page, the placing of one in the box seems different, if you can help please let me know.Bradford4life (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry B4l but I do not think the phrase "power house" is encyclopedic language. It does not have any precise meaning in relation to the size of the economy and is peacock/promotional and sourced only from a partisan publication. We should stick to facts and statistics. I propose that it be removed.--Charles (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Charles, can we have one or two other wiki editors giving an opinion, would also like to put a montage of Bradford pictures into the Bradford description box, any ideas as the wiki instructions seem unclear to me, the one inserted earlier, not by me... seems to have gone, leaving a sad looking map of West Yorkshire.Bradford4life (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The montage seems to have been deleted because its creator User:Jonfarman neglected to add a copyright status. I do not know how to make them. I have replaced the city hall photo for now.--Charles (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Charles, thanks for the town hall picture, the montage i talked about disappeared but seemed to be using all photos actually used presently by wiki, it seemed very odd as the copyright status must have been correctly applied originally for wiki to be using them now. Is that something you could look at? Regarding the word 'powerhouse'... is it possible to get a couple more wiki editors views? If that isn't possible, no worries.Bradford4life (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, B4l. You now have two editors who think "powerhouse" inappropriate. If you want further comment, you can go to WP:RFC. I'm afraid I have no expertise with images. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the montage, that will have been created in the editor's own software and uploaded. Even if it is composed from free images the resulting new image will be the intellectual property of its creator and will need to be released into the public domain. You could try contacting that editor and asking if it can be uploaded again.--Charles (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Charles, i'll do that regarding the montage upload editor. I think i'm happy with the consensus regarding power house, thanks to both of you for your imput.Bradford4life (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Rodney Friend
Put simply if a page is not in the mainspace (i.e. it is in the userspace) then you cannot link to it: it is passing userpages off as articles despite them not being held to any editorial standards - please do not restore the links again. Besides, that userpage was blatantly promotional anyway, as such I have deleted it--Jac16888 10:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Ways to improve Rodney Friend
Hi, I'm Kudpung. Bradford4life, thanks for creating Rodney Friend!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article needs independent 3rd party sources. Please see WP:RS and WP:BIO for more information on how to complete this article.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, i'll get on it over the weekend, thanks for your interest.Bradford4life (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Justify your deletions
You deleted without reason pictures of Bradford Cathedral and Synagogue. Why? Are you trying to Islamify Misplaced Pages? Indiasummer95 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC) There must be be better pictures.Bradford4life (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm Besieged. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Bradford, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. besieged 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bradford. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. besieged 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Bradford4life. We welcome your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Bradford, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. besieged 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)