Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advertising Standards Authority. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Luther Blissetts, I fail to see how a move from Khazars to Kangar makes "plagiarised" content non-plagiarized. The content pertains to the Khazar Kaganate, a critical component entirely missing from the article. The migration of the Kangar Union's population from Asia to the E. Europe is a firm fact, their displacement by the Oguzes is likewise a firm fact. The impact on the Khazaria and its population is a known fact, the locations of each Kangar tribe within and across the former Khazar territory is documented by the contemporaries. Critical weakening of Khazaria, loss of 1/3 of its territory, and impact on most of its trade belong to the Khazaria article, not the Kangar Union article. The episode also belongs to the article on Kangars, their anabasis across Eurasia. The contents would be the same, but the compiling would be around Kangars, not the Khazars.
On the "plagiarised" accusation, all wording is mine and original, from the notes that I keep and may have submitted to postings to public domain sites. If there are specific complaints about a use of my comments on public domain sites, I will be glad to address them. Otherwise the accusation is baseless, and need to be retrieved. It appears that the accusation is intended to sanitize the article from the historically known factual material.
The contribution cites two sources, Constantine Porphyrogenetus and Garizdi. I believe that both are sufficiently credible for the WP.
After you revert your move, the contents can be discussed on the Khazar Talk Page, as it should have been done to begin with. There must be a reason to elide critical information from the article.
Thank you for fixing the links.
Please note that within Khazaria, Kangars were displaced first by Oguzes, and then by Kipchaks. That sequence, for some reasons, is missing from the article. In the end, it is the audience that is suffering from the article shamefully inadequate for the WP. Barefact (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LutherBlissetts. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have been looking at the COI info and after a lot of reading decided that a partial COI is necessary regarding ASA material. I was in the process of checking the situation with a discussion page but thought a message here would be better. It would have been helpful if you could have explained the connected COI before I broke the protocol. I did after all declare in the title that I thought it would not be acceptable. Also bear in mind that although I have edited the HFUK page a lot, I am still unclear on many policies and techniques. You know that from my inability to add a quote, so WP:BITE still applies. The important thing about editing is to the writing and NPOV rather than knowing every single policy.
Anyway you have announced that I am not to edit the page. That is beyond what I think individual editors can do. It has to be done by administrators. I do not wish to engage in edit warring but I am very happy to take the matter to arbitration, if need be. Having made the connected COI declaration I request that you announce that you are happy for me to edit again. There is no Wiki protocol on COI editors being banned, provided the posts are NPOV and relevant. Whilst there may have been some possibly contentious issues in the distant past I am very careful. Hence my desire to use a direct quote rather than an interpretation of contentious issue. My recent edit on the the Medact Report 2016 just quoted the key points for instance. Then the edit cannot be disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=767754749&oldid=767751985
You have concerns about me, and I have concerns about your motivation for some of your edits. The blast of edits discourages others from joining in. Also I dislike the continuous 'clarification needed' and 'citation needed' for simple point. Edits should follow reliable sources and contain the info referred to.
I am also concerned as was Mikenorton about why and how long the maintenance tag is to be there. That to me seems to be a method of suggesting that the info is unreliable. It should not be there for that reason. The page was very stable (although some links had died) and there was only the occassional conflict before you arrived on the scene.
Hi Kennywpara, I see you have complained to another editor on his talk page, saying I have banned you from editing.[1] Please stop accusing me of things I haven't done and please stop attributing intentions I don't have. You have done this before with other editors on the talk page archived and you have been doing the same with me. If you can't agree to confine yourself to suggesting edits to improve the article, as your off-wiki adversary has done, then by all means, escalate this to adminstration, bearing in mind that "The central problems with you seem to have nothing to do with [sockpuppetry]"[2]. Nevertheless, you were editing the article at the same time as the username you're using now and did not revealing to an editor of the HF in the UK page, after he wrote on your sockpuppet page, that you were the same user as Kennywpara, and nor did you let other editors on the article's talk page that you were the same editor with a new account. You responded to that editor using the sockpuppet as if you were an absolute newbie, when you had been editing under your Kennywpara name for 6 months.
I have said to you that in the light of your advocacy/activism on hydraulic fracturing and shale gas and declared COI regarding the topics of Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom and Shale gas in the United Kingdom, that you use the talk page to suggest edits/improvements, but refrain from making any direct edits to the article itself. I have suggested the same to the activist/advocate Fyldeman.
After your COI declaration, I will not be announcing, happily or otherwise, that you may start editing the article again. Either both you and User:Fyldeman confine yourselves to suggesting article improvements/edit on the talk page, or perhaps it is best that neither of you have any future involvement given the nature your off-wiki relationship to each other as activist/campaigners for or against.
I have also suggested that as you an a WP:SPA, you would benefit from editing wikipedia articles which you are not connected to. I'm sorry that you don't accept this as a good way to learn about the wider wiki editing world, because it would have given you concrete experience of the structuring of articles, and the entire consensus process, which is normally a simple matter, confined to the editing process itself.
I have also asked both you @Kennywpara: and @Fyldeman: to please continue your social media battles outside of Wikipedia.
This is not banning you from editing. This is a common-sense confining of two known activists: you, pro-fracking who has been, in his own words, a "main contributor" to the article, and; Fyldeman, anti-fracking, who has never contributed to the article but like yourself, is mentioned on it, to making edits via suggestions on the talk page, which can then be actioned by other editors. It is not a banning, nor is it preventing either of you from imparting your knowledge to improve the article. It recognises that both of you have POV and that both of you are at loggerheads outside of wikipedia. I didn't know what else to suggest to be fair and keep focused on improving the article. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kennywpara, I have nothing further to add, except to say please re-read what I wrote above, reproduced below for your convenience. Please also re-read WP:COI in particular the section onWP:COIADVICE. You might also find a re-read of WP:SPA useful. If you wish to make any edits to the page, please in future will you use the 'Request an edit' link on the Talk:Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom page, which can be found in the COI edit notice which looks like this:
and gives instruction on how to submit edit requests to the article. This will assist other editors to peer review your proposal. Thank you.
I have said to you that in the light of your advocacy/activism on hydraulic fracturing and shale gas and declared COI regarding the topics of Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom and Shale gas in the United Kingdom, that you use the talk page to suggest edits/improvements, but refrain from making any direct edits to the article itself. I have suggested the same to the activist/advocate Fyldeman.
After your COI declaration, I will not be announcing, happily or otherwise, that you may start editing the article again. Either both you and User:Fyldeman confine yourselves to suggesting article improvements/edit on the talk page, or perhaps it is best that neither of you have any future involvement given the nature your off-wiki relationship to each other as activist/campaigners for or against.
I have also suggested that as you an a WP:SPA, you would benefit from editing wikipedia articles which you are not connected to. I'm sorry that you don't accept this as a good way to learn about the wider wiki editing world, because it would have given you concrete experience of the structuring of articles, and the entire consensus process, which is normally a simple matter, confined to the editing process itself.
I have also asked both you @Kennywpara: and @Fyldeman: to please continue your social media battles outside of Wikipedia.
This is not banning you from editing. This is a common-sense confining of two known activists: you, pro-fracking who has been, in his own words, a "main contributor" to the article, and; Fyldeman, anti-fracking, who has never contributed to the article but like yourself, is mentioned on it, to making edits via suggestions on the talk page, which can then be actioned by other editors. It is not a banning, nor is it preventing either of you from imparting your knowledge to improve the article. It recognises that both of you have POV and that both of you are at loggerheads outside of wikipedia. I didn't know what else to suggest to be fair and keep focused on improving the article.
Hi Luther, you recently re-posted a comment from someone else that violated the BLP policy, because it included unsourced negative remarks about a living person with whom the original poster was in a real-life dispute. In future, if you see that kind of comment, please ask an admin to remove it (unless it's reliably sourced and relevant to the article), but don't repeat it. BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia, not only articles. Many thanks, SarahSV(talk)07:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LutherBlissetts: you're welcome. When a DRN is raised, the filer is required to notify all concerned parties, he obviously didn't read the rules before opening the drn. Since you were listed as a major party., i thought it wise to let you know that I'm closing the case without discussion. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
HI - it's probably not a good idea to post to User talk:SuzanneOlsson as I'm guessing she no longer has access to that account, and no one replying to her current posts is likely to see that. The only account she is editing from is User talk:Suzanne Olsson. I'll post her old SPI on her current page and I guess the talk page of the article for background. Doug Wellertalk08:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know. It's just that editors are not likely to look at her old talk page from either FTN or the talk page of her article. There has been so much confusion about this editor it almost makes my head ache. Doug Wellertalk09:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shell and Chevron. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi - I hadn't noticed the bit about me checking them for neutrality. I'm not at all sure what that means and none of their edits are still in the article (and I think 2 didn't edit it at all). And of course, they're blocked. Suzanne Olsson is appealing but as she wants control over the article and it locked to her version, I doubt she'll get it (besides the sock issue). Doug Wellertalk12:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doug, It was clear that you had kept on top of the COI/SOCK issue, hence why I added your name. If you'd like it removed, it's not a problem. The various blocks have solved those issues (for now). I've read through her suggested changes and it's clear that she didn't understand that the article is about the author, not about the book/theories. There are enough RS to support inclusion/notability, so I too doubt there'd be consensus to lock/delete.Luther Blissetts (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Doug,That's a part of the COI connected contributor template. It can be altered, however it would seem unnecessary now that multiple socks of SO have been banned, including a new one that appeared today. I'll add the other socks and mark them up as banned, and remove the 'last checked' sentence. [4]Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So many templates, so little time. Anyway, I've started a discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor - no mention of you or any particular article although of course anyone checking my contributions will find this discussion. Do join in. After ten years I'm still learning new stuff about how we work. Which is fun. Hey, a brand new editor has just called me an almost legendary Administrator - I suspect that was tongue in cheek or 'legendary' in a not complementary way. I was wondering if they'd seen the Suzanne Olsson comments about me. Doug Wellertalk13:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ultraviolet photography is one of the many visual technologies. This image of the rings of Saturn is an example of the application of ultraviolet photography in astronomy.
Hello, LutherBlissetts. 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.
Richard Rohr OFM (born 1943, pictured at podium) is an American Franciscan friar ordained in 1970. He is a known inspirational speaker and has published numerous recorded talks and books.
U.S. Air Force 1st Lt. Matthew Feeman, builds a fire to help combat frostbite and hypothermia during a survival, evasion, resistance and escape exercise in Alaska. Note that there is a draft for the Survival page located at Draft:Survival.
Jahangir (31 August 1569 – 28 October 1627) was the fourth Mughal Emperor, who ruled the Mughal Empire from 1605 until his death in 1627. Pictured is a 17th century painting of Jahangir hunting with a falcon.
The People's Republic of Angola covers the period of Angolan history as a self-declared socialist state established in 1975 to the time it was dismantled in 1992.
Musicians at a pub session, an event that involves playing music and/or singing in the relaxed social setting of a local pub, in which the music-making is intermingled with the consumption of ale, stout, and beer and conversation.
Hello, LutherBlissetts. 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.
Animation illustrating the discovery history of satellite galaxies of the Milky Way over the last 100 years. The classical satellite galaxies are in blue (labeled with their names), SDSS-discoveries are in red, and more recent discoveries (mostly with DES) are in green.
The U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Josephus Daniels (CG-27) maneuvers around an island as it passes through the Strait of Magellan en route to Punte Arenas, Chile, on 1 July 1990, during exercise "Unitas XXXI", a combined exercise involving the naval forces of the United States and nine South American nations.
The National Museum is a Czech museum institution intended to systematically establish, prepare, and publicly exhibit natural scientific and historical collections. It was founded in 1818 and is located in Prague.
I see that the material was added in 2004, long before Wikipedia was as diligent about ensuring that sources are credited. Thanks for your contribution.
Good question - I emphasised a paragraph which on initial inspection appeared to be lifted from a 2007 thesis by Lydon, word for word. As you correctly say, the text was originally added to Wikipedia in 2004, thus the reference to 2007 thesis by Lydon is a citogenesis incident, in that Lydon appears to have plagiarised from Wikipedia in her 2007 thesis. I note now that the reference to Lydon was added to the Wikipedia article on Weaving on 6 Jan 2024 Weaving - Wikipedia
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.
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_passes_through_the_Strait_of_Magellan,_1_July_1990_(6475056).jpg)
