This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jongleur100. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Jongleur100
You have cited and claimed copy write to a photograph that is my property. Remove this photo within 48 hours and no charges will be processed. I am the full and legal owner of the photograph and you have not at any point asked my permission. I will return in 48 hours if the photograph of Don Touhig is not removed within this time. i will take legal action. Do not contact me using Wiki make all further communication to my personal email address at simd2000@hotmail.com. You have 48 hours —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontouhig (talk • contribs) 12:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Be very careful when you threaten people that you are in full possession of the facts. I took the photo at a public event where many people were taking photographs, including Don Touhig's own official photographer. I am in possession of the original and can prove when and where it was taken. I do not intend to correspond with you other than through Wikipedia.♦ Jongleur100 ♦talk17:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, we're generally really nice people here on Wikipedia, and when disputes arise, as they frequently do, we try to resolve them amicably. There are well laid down procedures to follow when the copyright of an image is in dispute As you are a newbie I'll explain how you should go about it. It's very simple. Just go to:
Firstly let me assure you that wikipedia provides no protection in Intellectual Property theft, nor do their procedures surmount to official proceeding in a court of law. I however I am covered and represented for instances such as this. I trust that from your reply you have no intention of removing or crediting me with ownership. So seems as your a newbie to IP theft let me explain how it works. I pay good money to protect myself from people who steal my property. I am covered by a action group by the name of ACID they ensure that my IP is insured much like you would insure your car. I have a assigned solicitor that takes care of all my legal matters as and when I call upon them. Threatening or not you are breaking the law. Along with myself, ACID and my solicitor have digitally signed copies of that photograph to prove that you are indeed not the owner of this photograp. No report will be made to wikipedia as the matter is far beyond infringements, you have stolen my work outright.
ACID policy is to give 48 hour notice to a suspected IP thief. ACID will now investigate my IP Theft report and will contact you in due course. You will find no solace in wikipedia's complains procedure as this matter is now out of my hands. I expect you will be contacted shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontouhig (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Why should I credit you, whoever you are, with ownership of a photograph that I have taken? It is not possible that you have a digitally signed copy of this photograph as it is cropped from a much larger one that I took. You may be in posession of a similar picture, but it is definitely not this one. I resent being accused of theft, and will be consulting my own lawyers. In the meantime I have replaced the picture, without prejudice. This is not in any way an admission that the image is not mine, but merely to save Wikipedia the inconvenience of having to defend any lawsuit, however spurious. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦talk23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. I hope this matter is now happily resolved and I welcome you to Wikipedia.
FYI: Anyone can edit Wikipedia so your simplest solution would have been to remove the image yourself, (it takes seconds) and then leave a message on the article's Talk (Discussion) page saying why you had done so. This is the way disputes are usually resolved in Wikipedia. We are mostly amateur editors working for the common cause and sometimes mistakes happen, but we try to correct them as quickly as possible. You can even delete text in the same way, but properly referenced text shouldn't be deleted without first discussing on the talk page. You may be surprised at just how flexible editors can be, given the right approach. As you have now created an account why not stick around and make the odd contribution? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦talk13:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
From what I have read, I would classify him as notable. He connects not only to Loughborough but also the Trevelyans, who are one of my favourites of the mad and bad British upper classes. Two areas where you may get picked up as language goes is the 'disastrous' fire, but I can't see too many people arguing it as it did end production; and the 'supreme achievement' of the Arts and Craft, but that is backed up on Gimson's page. It's a good article, and I'd fight it with you if challanged. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
On 6 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Waals, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hmm, well spotted on both accounts. I must admit not to have scrutinised the brewery link very thoroughly. But it's hard to see how to link the brewery otherwise. Any ideas? And sorry, am not much of a one for wiki clubs, even Welsh ones. Dioch yn fawr. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Provincial sides
To be honest, I'm not 100% sure about the difference. I would say it has to do with the organisation of the club. AFAIK, teams in the Magners League, particularly the Irish teams, operate on a regional basis, similar to that in the Super 14, but teams in the Guinness Premiership and the French Top 14 are club sides. – PeeJay14:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me as it is, and many players' infoboxes already use the provincial parameters for Celtic League clubs, which would make the transition more difficult, but if you think it's necessary, go ahead. – PeeJay16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
As requested, you now have rollback privileges. Use it with care. If there is any chance that a user has made a good faith attempt to add information, you should not use the rollback. -- ☑ SamuelWantman07:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Dan Touhig
We'll do. But in the event you have spotted the IP user doing vandals again and has been warned properly, please post a report to WP:AIV. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
