User talk:Bandalore

Welcome!

Hello, Bandalore, and

, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

• 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

or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

I nominated this article for speedy deletion because it seems to be a copyright violation of material found on http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/humanities/cns/m-spain.html

In general it's not a good idea to create articles by simply copying and pasting from another website.

If you wish to use that material as a starting point for a better article you can create a sub page on your user page.

e.g. [[/Nancy Spain]]

Then you edit that subpage until it is no longer a copyright violation and you are happy with it, then you can simply move the material to a new article in the encyclopedia.

Take care.

TheRingess 03:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nancy Spain material on the Northumbria U website was written by me and is my copyright. It has now been shifted to http://pages.britishlibrary.net/alan.myers in any case. I hope it can stay where it is in Wikipedia.

07:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My integrity has been impugned by Wikipedia and I seek an apology. The deleted Nancy Spain material was written by me, and there is nothing live on the Northumbria ac.uk cns site which TheRingess quotes. It is merely a link to my present (non-profit site) at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/alan.myers

I hold the copyright on this material, and can supply written evidence from academics. I can hardly be stealing from myself! I'd like to see Nancy restored, but I shan't bother unless I get a satisfactory reply.

14:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bandalore, I'm sorry you feel that way! I can imagine it must be very frustrating to be told you are 'stealing' text from somewhere else while you're not. We'd appreciate it if you'd consider continuing to contribute to Wikipedia.

Regarding the article: the text that you inserted is not completely suitable for Wikipedia. The main issue is that it is not completely

]

I've edited my raw material in this light, but I don't mind if a more experienced hand gives it the suitable form.

Bandalore

11:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Article creation

I have been looking through the list of unwatched pages (available only to administrators) and found

]

I intend to create a few final pages and then start tweaking. I'm not altogether used to the process as yet. In the meantime, I know my chickens and will keep a watch on them. Thanks.

Bandalore

23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on your edits to the Newcastle upon Tyne article at Talk:Newcastle upon Tyne#Edit. Thanks. Johnwalton 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't sign talk pages as

]

Signing your posts

You're accidentally linking to a real article rather than your namespace. To sign automatically simply put "~~~~" (without the quotation marks) and wikipedia will do it for you. If you wish to do it manually you need to put "User:Bandalore" as your link e.g. User:Bandalore (you need to make this page! Feel free to edit it however you wish).

Similarly you may way to link to your user talk instead if you do not wish to create a userpage for yourself. This can be done by linking to "User_talk:Bandalore"

Hope this helps you :)

Take a look here for more info

Fyver528 09:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and

]

South Bank

Sorry, but isn't South Bank in London? NewYork1956 07:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an area of London described as the South Bank since 1951, but not in 1882. It's an arts complex, not a place where one might be born.

South Bank in Middlesbrough is a specific place (there's no North Bank because Middlesbrough is entirely south of the River Tees, some 250 miles north of London). The entry makes it clear that Florence was sent to London to study, and returned to Middlesbrough from Canada.

Fascinating article by the way, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Bandalore 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for clearing that up, but on the article when you click that link it still brings you to London's South Bank. Perhaps you could change it to the article it should go to. Thanks, NewYork1956 00:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{

}}

I have acquired a domain name www.myersnorth.co.uk

This should replace the former http://pages.britishlibrary.net/alan.myers

which appears all over Wikipedia - most importantly with the articles on W.H. Auden and Yevgeni Zamyatin

I haven't a clue about how to change all these links - and not much clue about anything else! I've done all my contributing to Wikipedia (quite a lot) and what I would really like is for some kind person to just wave a magic wand.

(Bandalore 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do you mean you want to move a Article to a different Page name? if you do seem

addict 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Bandalore, it's not really a matter of 'waving a wand', but I think I know what you mean :) I'll have a look at it it tomorrow or this weekend! Thanks for letting us know. Kind regards, --JoanneB 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your website appears to redirect to http://www.seaham.i12.com/myers/. Is this a 'permanent' location? That is, will the information stay there for a while? --JoanneB 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JoanneB, yes, it does redirect to the Seaham site and it will stay there for a while - permanently I hope, though there are some imponderables. Even if my material moves in the future, I understand that the domain name www.myersnorth.co.uk will continue to point at the relevant site. Thanks for your time. regards Bandalore 11:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, the articles link to the specific parts of your website that contain the information that is relevant to that specific article. It would be useful if we could do the same now, but then we would not be using the www.myersnorth.co.uk domain, that's why I asked. --JoanneB 11:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at the edits to We (novel) and Yevgeny Zamyatin and see if they are what you had in mind?

How do the online version and the published version differ (other than in the title)?

What is the last page number of the article? (all I could find is "pp. 417" at ingentaconnect.com)

--Jtir 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance Jtir. The last pp numbers should be 417-427.

However, interested parties should access my online version 'Zamyatin in Newcastle' (now via www.myersnorth.co.uk.) It contains all the material of the articles I wrote in the 1990s plus added information and is kept right up to date. It is crucially relevant to the connection between WE and Zamyatin's life in Newcastle. I would like it to appear on both the WE (novel) and Zamyatin pages.

Bandalore 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the page nos. and for the clarification. Would it be possible for you to put what you said above somewhere on your web page? The link in the cite template is to your online version. This is slightly misleading since users might expect to find the published version. I completely agree that the article is relevant to both We (novel) and Yevgeny Zamyatin. --Jtir 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as the online version completely supersedes the original published articles (which contain some errors and conjectures since disproven, and in any case were published 14-17 years ago) I would prefer the cite template link to remain pointing to the online version.

[I'm not sure that the Slavonic and East European review can be accessed without subscription anyway. I wrote three articles on Z in Newcastle for it 1990-93. Only the first used to appear as a reference in Wikipedia. Now only the third one is there. Much better to clear the lot away and insert the online version. The reader will miss nothing, and gain a lot (plus photographs!]

Bandalore 13:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info. The external links section in We (novel) and Yevgeny Zamyatin now explains the relation between the published articles and the online article. --Jtir 21:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very many thanks. This is to everyone's benefit.

Bandalore 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you take a look at the translation of the title of this book referenced in Zinaida Serebriakova? A Russian editor and I developed it, but I have never been completely satisfied with it.

• Serebriakova, Zinaida Evgenevna (1987). Zinaida Serebriakova : pisma, sovremenniki o khudozhnitse. compiled by V.N. Kniazeva, annotated by U.N. Podkopaeva. Moskva: Izobrazitelnoe iskusstvo. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (in Russian) [1]

Zinaida Serebryakova: letters and contemporary writings on the painter.

--Jtir 22:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article with interest; the English seems a bit uncertain. Anyway, the word 'coal' in this context should be 'charcoal'.

The sub-title of the book is, literally: 'Letters, contemporaries on the artist.' This is unusually snappy for a Russian book. It's usually 'The Artist through the Eyes of Contemporaries' or some such.

A brisk English translation might be: 'Zinaida Serebriakova: Letters, contemporary views.'

Bandalore 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I put both versions in. Catherine Boncenne, who is a niece of the artist and Head of the Serebriakova Trust, recommended this title and the one by Rusakova. Unfortunately, neither book seems to be available in English.

I made the change to charcoal, too. The article could use some copyediting, as you noted.

--Jtir 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your earlier msg in Talk:We (novel) is where I learned of a possible connection. I don't recall having ever heard of 4711. --Jtir 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of a reference is the subject of a WP article, the article can be linked from the reference.
For example, the single reference in Auguste Kerckhoffs has a link to the article about historian and author David Kahn.
Wikipedia:Citation templates has the gory details. (The authorlink field is the one that is used to make the link.)

--Jtir 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{

}}

I used to have my webspace on the British Library site, but they have now discontinued this support (for everybody). Unfortunately, I see that two key references to my work on

still point to the old defunct BL site.

I am afraid of bungling so am appealing for assistance.

My domain name is now www.myersnorth.co.uk and the relevant section of that is titled 'Auden in the North'. (Not Auden and the North). The new site has the word Seaham in it.

One link appears in the External Links section of

At the top of this section there is: 'See also: descriptive list on the Auden Society website. The other reference to Auden in the North is there.

My work covers in detail aspects of Auden which are unavailable elsewhere, so I am anxious to get the directions right.

I'd be most grateful for some help here.

Bandalore 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done... well, half done. I updated the external links of W.H. Auden to your new website in this edit. All you have to do is change the website url; I'd encourage you to give it a try yourself next time. The other link is on an offsite domain audensociety.org which only references wikipedia. You will have to contact the administrators of that site to get the link updated. Cheers. Hoof Hearted 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the future it is best to put the help template on your talk page - that way you get notification when your answer arrives. Hoof Hearted 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relief and thanks.

Bandalore 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here are two tips for editing talk pages.

• To start a new section, with a new header, click the small tab with the "+" sign in it. The section will have the name you put in the "Subject/headline:" box and will be appended to the end of the talk page. The edit summary will also show this name.
• To edit an existing section, click the blue link to the right of the section header that says "[edit]". This will display the contents of that section only, relieving you of the need to navigate to it.

--Jtir 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from Talk:We (novel) to move discussion here. --Jtir 19:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

The only English translation of the Newcastle novellas that I know is from the Salamander Press 1984 (Flamingo 1985 paperback), translated by Sophie Fuller and Julian Sacchi. ISBN 0-00-654141 - 0 (the paperback)

Martin Amis called the stories 'remarkable in every way' (Observer 4.11.1984)

Bandalore 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A separate WP article on The Islanders or the collection might be justified if Martin Amis has reviewed either. You have to establish

notability when creating a new article. --Jtir 19:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There doesn't seem to be such an article, although there is this dab page: The Islanders (disambiguation).--Jtir 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles seem to be sufficient to establish

notability

:

• Martin Amis review (Observer 4.11.1984) — Is this a full review?
• Tale into Play: Recovering the Narrator's Part in Zamjatin's Society of Honorary Bellringers — She mentions "critical notice" in 1918 and 1922.

--Jtir 19:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This card catalog image from the NLR has some unusual features. We, Chekova, 1952

• It is handwritten. (Most of the bib info on the other cards I have looked at is printed or typewritten.)
• The card has lines and columns on it.
• There is an apparent date in the upper left of "69-5".
• There is an apparent date in the lower right of "21/X-88?" in different handwriting from the rest of the card. (I'm not sure what the last character is.)

I realize this is creeping into

]

I don't think the top left hand number 69-5 is a date - or if it is, it makes no sense to me. It might just be some kind of acquisition number.

The bottom left hand date of 1988 no doubt refers to the Selected Works of that year. The indistinct writing underneath seems to start 'Glav...' (Russian for chief...).

The bottom right hand date is another such reference. The scrawl after it looks like s/ya i.e. short for sochineniia; works. That's all I can make out. I have asked others.

Bandalore 00:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bandalore, I posted the passage below too spontaneously after following the link from Zamyatin talk to your site. Admittedly: Love at first sight, your site that is. Absolutely wonderful. Now Jtir was a bit angry at me for unloading the whole passage below in the Zamyatin talk section. May I park it here for a little while, before I delete it altogether. Although Jtir suggested to simply reduce it to the relevant passage. I am aware that as a Kraut I might possibly be a little too interested in these matters. A couple of years ago, I only knew there was a myth, but I did not know anything about the story of the Protocols. But this connection sounds interesting. From the first time I read about it, I wondered if this forgery does not indeed pull much of its power from all the other Anti-utopias that exist in the world. ... As I learned now: e.g. "We". LeaNder 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally on Talk Section: Zamyatin'

Are you an expert on Zamyatin, I have no time to take a closer look? What raised your interest?

I am really pleased there is a little something on him, I can come back to with a little more time. I am just in the process of translating a short article and I never heard the name before. It's not really related, but a fast scan on your entry for Zamyatin tells me you might possibly like to see the passage below, so I cut and paste a longer passage of my translation below, I'll mark Zamyatin for you. I'll change the footnote and the last one is not finished yet. Neither is this proofread this is the first draft, so forgive anything that hurts your English eyes/ears.

It's from a German book the title in translation reads: Conspiracy theories: Anthropological Constants - historical Variants ( in German: Ute Caumanns, Mathias Niendorf (ed.) Verschwörungstheorien: Anthropologische Konstanten - historische Varianten, Osnabrück: Fibre, 2001, p. 90 f) The special article is: by Michael Hagemeister, The Myth of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” [Der Mythos der "Protokolle der Weisen von Zion"] Michael Hagemeister is working on Sergei Nilus the first publisher of the "Protocols" in Russia. He is one of the most interesting scholars I know of at the moment. This is of cause an interesting topic for us Krauts.

<Snip>

The “Protocols” are qualified by their devotees as “Apocalyptical Roadmap to the Anniliation of the Christian World”, by its opposers as the “Bible of Antisemitism”, as script for progroms or even as a “Warrant for Genocide”. If one makes the effort and reads the protocols from beginning to end, one has to question oneself, how any agitatorial effect could possibly evolve from this text. It is long, confuse and partially self-contradictory. But most importantly it outlines - quite contrary to conventional wisdom - not only a horror image. The protocols indeed first describe in detail the tactics of the conspirators according to which the Christian people shall be worn down politically through revolutions, war and anarchy and mentally by rationalism, materialism and atheism. But then it described least just as detailed what the Jewish world empire will look like, that will be erected on the ruins of the old order: It will be a centralitic and patriarchical dictatorship with a decendant of the House of David on top. This king is described as of charismatic stature, a paragon of virtue and culture, admired by the masses of the people, downright deified. As a charitable despot he will rule over a unified mass arranged in proper order, that is perfectly controlled by mutual spying, sated and satisfied through full-time employment and all-embracing enterainment.

The “Protocols” can thus be read as a future totalitarian social welfare dictatorship (as a critical one, furthermore, since they are out to prevent it) and could, did they only possess a little more stylistic qualities, be easily classified as and put into a row with the most famous dystopia’s of the Russian literature of the 19 th and 20th century: Starting with Dostoevski’s The Grand Inquisitor (1879/80), who – just like the absolute ruler of the Protocols – considers the common people as weak and perfidious, takes their freedom , but offers them bread, games and security, via Vladimir Solov'ëv famous depiction of „The Antichrist“ (1900) as a charismatic superman, who comes to power as a “secret link” of the “mighty fraternal covenant of the freemasons”,(2) and who safeguards his authority through welfare, peace and wonderwork shows, to Yevgeny Zamyatin’s novel “We” (1920), the vision of a totalitarian centralized state and a dictator called “benefactor” at the top.

It is surprising how rarely the “Protocols” are read as an anticipation of the modern police state and related to the two big dictatorships of the 20th century. This has happened only in very few cases, for instance Hannah Arendt pointed out the “peculiarly modern elements” in the “Protocols” and remarked: “The Nazis began with the ideological fiction of a world conspiracy and organized themselves more or less consciously after the model of the fictive secret society of the Elders of Zion.” (3) Already in 1936 Alexander Stein had called Hitler in the title of his book a “Scholar of the Elders of Zion”, and in the following year Iwan Heilbut compared the practices of the Nazis with the alleged plans of Jewry in the “Protocols”. Maybe this is precisely why – because of the all too obvious analogy – the “Protocols” after 1939 were not published anymore and a book ready for print was halted.(4) This of cause has to be researched more closely.

Footnotes:

1. 2 :Vladimir Solov'ëv, Kurze Erzählung des Antichrist. Übersetzt und erläutert von Luddof Müller, 8. Aufl. München 1994, p. 24. [no English translation on fast check; Library of Congress, British Library Title. Translation of title: Short Tale of the Antichrist] Solov’evs novella, which has been translated in many languages, even in the century of media criticism still activates mythical interpretations, and has been again and again interpretated as a visionary unveiling of the menacing machinations of Jews and Freemasons working as the confederates of the Antichrist. For more information: Michael Hagemeister, Vladimir Solov’ev and Sergej Nilus: Apocalypticism and Judeophobia, in: Vladmir Solov’ev – Reconciler and Polemicist, eds Wil van den Bercken, Manon de Courten and Evert van der Zweerde, Leuven 2000.
2. 3 :Hannah Arendt, Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft, 2. Edition, München, Zürich 1991, S. 569, 595 [The origins of totalitarianism] Alexander Stein [Rubinstein], Adolf Hitler. Schüler der „Weisen von Zion“, Karlsbad 1936; Iwan Heilbut, Die öffentlichen Verleumder. Die „Protokolle der Weisen von Zion“ und ihre Anwendung in der heutigen Weltpolitik, Zürich 1937 (French: Les vrais Sages the Sion, Paris 1937). [Translation Titles: A.S., Adolf Hitler, student of the „Elders of Zion“. I.H., The Public Libelists. The „Protocols of the Elders of Zion“ and their application in contemporary world politics.]
3. 4: This concerns the book of Sergej Nilus, Der jüdische Antichrist und die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion, Leipzig,Wien 1938: Johannes Günther Verlag. [Translation of title: The Jewish anti-Christ and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion] Geoffrey T. Cubitt, Conspiracy Myths and Conspiracy Theories, in Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford, 20, (1989), p. 12-26. In the conspirator-centered type either known individuals are accused of a conspiracy or groups of conspirators are denominated (the Jews, the Freemasons, the communists); the simple pointer on the fact that someone is Jewish, Freemason, Communists is quite enough to mark him as a conspirator. One only has to think about the exposure according to the patterns “Trotzky – Bronstein”

<Snip end>

I'll be back in a couple of days, and take a closer look at your site too. Wonderful on first sight. LeaNder 16:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind message LeaNder. I'm not an expert on Zamyatin though of course I'm aware of his life and career. I am, however, regarded as the authority on Zamyatin's time in Newcastle 1916-17 and the influence of that milieu on Zamyatin's work, particularly WE.

I am a native of the Newcastle area and reading 'Islanders' long ago sparked off my interest, though I didn't get around to doing anything about it until the 90s.

There's a great deal of original research on my site which you won't find elsewhere. Even modern Russian scholars, who are now very interested in Zamyatin, are unaware of e.g the Harold Heslop connection.

I've never come across the Protocols in the context of anti-utopias. What you say makes a lot of sense and seems a fruitful line of inquiry.

The best of good luck

Bandalore 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bandalore, that you are so patient with me. I stopped with the translation for the time being, as the friend I wanted to translate it for has shown no interest.

Newcastle can be very, very pleased about your site. It is simply perfect for the kind of culture tourists like me.

I decided to read more of Hagemeister's research on the Protocols. But I think to study it simply as literature or with the methods of literary studies is rather new. E.g. Cesare G. De Michelis What is more astounding is that not much original research has been devoted to the matter since the sixties, but everybody basically copied with the rare exception of Michelis and Hagemeister. But that is a comment for the special sections on the topic, which has taken a strange turn. But I need more time for that. Maybe that could be my topic here. The best from Germany LeaNder 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of George Burton Hunter, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.seaham.i12.com/myers/hunter.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

]

There is discussion about this deletion at User talk:JLaTondre#Deletion of George Burton Hunter. --Jtir (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has some advice that might be helpful in the future: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Jtir (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been restored. It needs sourcing however. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added some refs and links.

Bandalore: could you review my links? I had to guess about some.

We still need to work out how to

copyvio

.

--Jtir (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James Wilson Carmichael, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.seaham.i12.com/myers/carmichael.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

]

This is the same absurd situation as obtained with regard to Nancy Spain and George Burton Hunter. I simply transferred material from my own site to Wikipedia. Still, I won't make a fuss this time. Carmichael isn't a major figure.

Bandalore (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

There is a link. Just below the subsection title, you should be able to see the following:

Main article:

List of residents of Newcastle upon Tyne

Regards,

talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

See what? There's a blank in your post, as well as below the subsection I've looked anyway and see that there is a link in the edit enclosed by curly brackets. I've repl;aced them by square brackets and all is well.

Bandalore (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandalore, maybe there is a problem with your browser because everyone else can see these links. I can't think what might be causing it though. I notice someone else has reverted your change on Newcastle again.

talk) 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you see this?

Main article:

List of residents of Newcastle upon Tyne

(I have substituted the template here to see if it makes a difference to you.)

talk

) 20:20, 13 August

2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your efforts MSGJ. I couldn't see the link and now again can't see it, but for a while during my fiddling it did appear (and worked) My browser must be on the blink.

Bandalore (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Walpole

Interesting (and I believe accurate) additions - but could you add inline citations for your statements, to stop them being unsupported assertions? Many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the para to some extent, both adding and subtracting. The factual information is contained in the Oxford New DNB. I don't think I'll be able to supply citation of The Cathedral which I saw a long time ago. Perhaps that can be deleted.

Bandalore (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Marsh

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Charlotte Marsh, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.seaham.i12.com/myers/marsh.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright problems with Charlotte Marsh

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Charlotte Marsh, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.seaham.i12.com/myers/marsh.htm. As a copyright violation, Charlotte Marsh appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Charlotte Marsh has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the

Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

(CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Charlotte Marsh and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Charlotte Marsh with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the
  CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Charlotte Marsh
  .

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some other edits on your talk page I have removed the speedy delete tag and blanked it instead pending confirmation that it is your website that the page is copied from. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that the Charlotte Marsh material is taken from my own website which is now http://www.myersnorth.co.uk I intend to add a little to it

Bandalore (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but I'm a relative newcomer and not an admin or OTRS volunteer, so I've left a note for an admin who has been here a while to take a look and see if whatever verification we have on file is sufficient under current policies. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying permission

Hi. I'm afraid that I cannot find verification on file in the OTRS system, and we do need this unless you place a licensing release at your website. If we do this properly it should avoid future confusion about the usability of your content, so that you stop winding up in this situation. :)

Would you prefer to place a release at your website (<http://www.sclews.me.uk/myers.html> would be the best position) or to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation? Either way, I can help you craft a statement that will not only cover your current content, but also any future imports of your own text you should choose to make. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks but no. It's unlikely that I will be uploading any whole entries like this, so I'll leave it.

Bandalore (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is likely to affect more entries than the current. We need to verify permission for

WP:IOWN

. These are the only two forms of permission that we are permitted to accept, since we have no means of verifying your identity on account creation.

If you don't wish to go through the verification procedure, of course, that's fine. We're still very happy for your contributions. But you will have to make sure that all content you place on the project is newly written and not previously published even by you, except that you may use brief excerpts that are clearly marked in accordance with

non-free content policies (and, of course, you may use public domain or compatibly licensed materials if marked in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]