User talk:Counter-revolutionary

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Counter-revolutionary (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reasons: Abusing multiple accounts denied; threatening behaviour denied (and unlikely givern editor's editing patterns); the block was not appropriate in the first place, was excessive and is not in any event any longer serving a purpose; natural justice; time served

Accept reason:

Per discussion with the blocking admin / there are questions over the connection between the vandalizing account and C-R / the Lauder affair is very much over and had previously been dealt with by ArbCom / editor was never formally community-banned / editor is not, and to my knowledge has never been, engaging in sock-puppeteering in the interim / two and a half years is more than enough / also applying

WP:AGF here / block can be re-applied by other admins if necessary after unblocking Alison ^❤ 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm confused, User:Kittybrewster. This block is more than two years old- has this user contacted you to request unblock? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kittybrewster ☎ 02:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we hear this from Counter-revolutionary? Perhaps in conjunction with a rebuttal, rather than just a denial, of the allegations? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does he rebut it? What can he do? Kittybrewster ☎ 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for himself would be a start, followed by some attempt to counter whatever evidence was used to impose the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He can't counter checkuser "likely" with evidence. He is not a computer geek and doesnt know how ip addresses work. He has said (above)

* I thought I best give you my side. The accusations against me have come as a complete, and unwelcome, surprise. When the Sussexman/Lauder case arose it was noted I edited other accounts, non-abusively, and was asked to stop this as a condition of my continuing to edit; I complied with this (as could be seen by a checkuser). Those accounts have since not been used in any way, nor have I edited any other account.

One must ask several questions: 1. Why would I choose the name User:Nick_Corsellis_QC? 2. Why would I risk such trolling knowing full well it could be discovered? 3. When have I ever in the past used crude language, swear words, etc (something I detest) such as "F**k you" and "Me gonna stab you"!? 4. What grudge would I hold against Alison and the other user to make such comments? Further to this I have never even heard of User:Centrx. 5. Take a look at User:Giano II's post concerning User:Nick_Crosellis_QC on User:Alison's page. He says he "knows" who the account belongs to, certainly a bold claim for an account with 2 edits. User: Giano II then demands a checkuser, which draws the conclusion that its a "generic British Telecom IP address with no other users on it." I'll be the first one to admit about knowing nothing about IP addresses but I wonder how the checkuser has reached the conclusions it did, given there were "no other users on it." Clearly, however, it has reached this conclusion. This leads me to one of several conclusions; 1. the checkuser system is entirely flawed, 2. the checkusers have "set me up" (I think this is most doubtful and do not advance it as a serious proposal), 3. some other editor(s) have "set me up", I don't know how, but it seems to me a plausible explanation if at all possible. Finally, on the charges against me it is said: * supported by the technical evidence, similarity in your areas of editing and past conduct, and by the timing of your edits and those that account. Given your previous blocks for sockpuppetry and harassing behaviour * To this my reply is: * Similarity of areas of editing: there is similarity of only one edit (out of two), User:Alison's talk page, on which I have never been abusive. * Past conduct? I have never used such crude and abusive language on the WP. * The timing? From what I can see the timing is within an hour of my edits, not a few seconds.

I assure you that this account has nothing to do with me.

Is more needed? What? Why?

• Admins - let's not decline this too quickly, please? I'd like to address this in depth, myself. I have a lot of technical data from when the Lauder checkuser was run & I know exactly what part Counter-rev played in all that. However, I've never yet heard from C-R on how he could explain certain matters. On the Corsellis issue above, my leaning may be somewhat towards option 3. - I've seen it happen before & it's really not C-R's style - but right now, my main concern lies with what happened over the Lauder incident and how a significant number of accounts all voted from the same IP to attempt to bring down Giano's ArbCom attempt, back in the day. On the whole, I'm not opposed to unblock - not at all - but there are unanswered questions. I'd also like to hear from
  User:WJBScribe
  , the blocking admin. It's been over two years ago now ....

• Link to CU discussion from my talk page

- Alison ^❤ 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been in contact via e-mail with User:Carcharoth regarding the unblock, I understood he was liaising with the relevant committee. In the wake of the Lauder/Sussexman debacle, it was decided I could continue to edit. From what I can remember, I was blocked following a comment made on Alison's page, which was somehow attributed to me. I did not write this and have no idea about the circumstances in which it was written; it it wholly unconnected to me, Given that years have now passed, I'd be grateful if I could edit once more. Thanks. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I just also point out that, to my knowledge, C-R has never actually been formally banned from WP, and that a block, though indefinite, does not necessarily imply infinite - Alison ^❤ 09:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, as I understand it the Sussexman/Lauder issue was dealt with previously and the result was that I was allowed to continue editing. As I see it, I was blocked solely on the basis of the remark made on your user page by Corsellis. This was not me. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if ArbCom clarify that with you (FloNight should certainly know, as will Fozzie) then that's great. I know you had been editing since the Lauder debacle, then the Corsellis edits occurred. If we're just down to the Corsellis edits, given that over two years have elapsed, I'm sure something can be sorted. Don't want to pre-emp ArbCom or anything, but .... - Alison ^❤ 11:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A return of this editor would not be condusive to the well being of the project.

I have absolutely no insight into the Lauder/Sussexman debacle, or the technical evidence, but I would support the argument that it is extremely illogical, from a behavioural point of view, that Counter-revolutionary would be responsible for the renamed user edits. If these are the only basis for the continuing block then I would support a, perhaps conditional, unblock. If there are other confounding issues relating to Lauder/Sussexman sockpuppetry, I would suggest an appeal to ArbCom. Rockpocket 13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really bad call as far as I'm concerned. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge all of that, Dormer48, but the block was for an unrelated incident, which I deny. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Considering the level of abuse here, including canvassing, logged out editing, and legal threats, I see no reason to be coy about accounts that currently appear to be well-behaved but are obviously the same individual. Thatcher 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)" The CU came back as:

 Confirmed

1. Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Chelsea Tory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Christchurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Immanuel can't (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What more could I add. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, you cannot add anything. This is all widely know, agreed and acknowledged; the action taken on foot of this was, however, that I could continue to edit. I was blocked for an unrelated incident. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct which preceded the block, justified it. Your previous conduct, "Considering the level of abuse" and the reason for your block cannot be considered to be an "unrelated incident."--Domer48_'fenian' 15:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those accounts are three people, Domer. 1. Sussexman 2 CounterRev 3 The rest. 2 years + have now passed. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Thatcher. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thia account most certainly should not be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster is saying CR isn't Sussexman, perhaps they could explain this ? Specifically the post by Alison at 20:52, 9 July 2008 where she states the the unblock request from Sussexman came from the exact same IP address and the exact same computer as an edit by CR 7 minutes later, and that is just "one tiny example" and there are "many, many more". Another issue needing explanation is FloNight's post at 21:08, 9 July 2008 saying "The independent checkuser that I did in April showed similar patterns to the one Alison describes. Another arbitrator reviewed account contributions on specific dates and saw obvious links WITHOUT checkuser evidence. These accounts have been looked at independently repeatedly and every time the same conclusion, these accounts are linked and have been used abusively. With each review the evidence of a link gets stronger" --Domer48_'fenian' 16:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is that sussexman and counter both gave their passwords to David Lauder. The point is 1 this was over two years ago and 2 that Alison recognises that the abuse by Counter rev was minimal. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry was committed & that's unacceptable. It's very difficult to AGF in such situations. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suck it and see. AGF. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Good Day and welcome to the fray! I understand your concern regarding the multiple accounts, etc. however, following the discovery of this I was not blocked - it was decided that I could continue editing (whereas David Lauder, etc. were blocked). I continued editing until a user made some rude comments on Alison's page. Somehow, it was concluded that this was me. It was not. In any event, it has been two years since this event. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having the same IP, rather clarifies who's who. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does having a different IP on 99.9% of occasions. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My advice (though not good advice) to the individual using this indef-blocked account, is to evade the block with a new account (but only 1 new account) & dissassociate him/herself from his/herself's Wiki past. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know if an unblock here is appropriate; I would be happy to accept

Like I said, my advice on this, isn't the best to follow. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I do think that a natural justice appeal is worthy of consideration. After two years what is being achieved by continuing the block? It is also with asking, if this guy is a serial and disruptive sock-puppeteer, why is he not just setting up a new account and being disruptive? Anyway, give the guy a break and see what happens. Also, C-R, drop me an email, been a long time.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good question, and perhaps I might pose it differently. Why not start up a new account, disassociate from the negative elements tainting this one, and edit constructively? I can think of only one good reason, that is if the editor intends to contribute in the same area's and the same manner as this one and does not wish to have claims of sock/meatpuppetry made when the two are linked. This would be legitimate, except that there are elements of partisanship and disruptive behaviour in this editing area. This is clearly evidenced by the editors, generally, commentating here for anyone with even a passing knowledge of these issues. Personally, I cannot see how the area might be improved by the return of this editor. I oppose an unblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of the reason there may be opposing editors stacking up here is that very reason of editing in a contentious area. It's not so much 'disruptive editing' as 'having the wrong POV'. Jes' sayin' .. - Alison ^❤ 23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person behind the account-in-question, was dishonest with the community, by not admitting he/she had multiple accounts. He/she gets a thumbs down from me. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny I used multiple accounts. I deny I wrote the comment in question on Alison's page. I'm happy to use a new account, but would wish to make edits to areas which I edited in the past, albeit to a lesser extent. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, when you used them, you didn't make it known. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Alison's

suggestion of bad faith on editors reasons for commenting here, the fact remains and she ignores is that this editor is a confirmed sock abusing and disruptive editor. That Kittybrewster offers a ridiculous explanation for the socking, and CR feels that the block was uncalled for shows a level of disassociation from realty that is astounding. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In the aftermath of the sock-puppeteering I was allowed to continue editing. The block was due to a one comment made on Alison's page. I have attempted to assure you that this was not made by me; Alison seems to be of this opinion herself. In any event, this occurred two years ago. Surely one should be able to return to Wikipedia and continue editing during good behaviour. I would imagine this would be preferable to, as you've suggested, starting a new account and evading the block. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After over six years in dealing with Troubles issues on here, Domer,

WP:AGF can only take you so far :/ - Alison ^❤ 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

However, that's done and dusted. This block relates to an account that made a total of two edits ever. The main issue re. this account was not the edits, but its original name in which it abused the name of a prominent barrister. I think even you'll agree, Domer, that the edits made were so out of character for C-R as to cast serious doubt on the claim that it was him. Frankly, and I've said this already, it looks like a classic Joe job or setup. Even that notwithstanding, two and a half years for a block is more than enough, IMO - Alison ^❤ 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will oppose the unblocking of this account. If the community 'however' decides to allow its unblocking, then so be it. I recommend that a proposal of 'unblocking' be put to the community. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that C-R has never been formally banned, I don't see a need for a long-winded, drama-fueled community proposal. That's not how unblocks are done. In fact, I'm going to followup with the blocking admin & request his opinion on the matter - Alison ^❤ 18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the account is unblocked without community input, there's not much I can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocks mean "No fixed duration", they do not, and should not mean forever -

WP:INDEF - unless the editor just wants to vandalise, in which case the block is always quickly re-applied - such unblocked editors are often added to the watch list of many others.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Either way - trusting you a bit here. Best wishes & welcome back to Wikipedia - Alison ^❤ 21:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alison. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me an email if you get a chance.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but Shane was an apparently self-chosen nickname. It is not appropriate to refer to him as "Sir Shane". He was Sir John Leslie, but not Sir Shane Leslie, I would think. [email protected] (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Welcome back. [email protected] (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{
  User wikipedia/autopatrolled
  }} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia becomes more of a joke by the moment.
   Giacomo  18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Why, Giano? I would think that saves trouble for everyone. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (

WP:MINOR

). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of

talk) 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch

Hi. I shall be glad if you can join the discussion of the requested move of the article title of

Murray MacLehose, of which you may be interested. --Clithering (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:MC Flag.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale

.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:MC Facts.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale

.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Random 003.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Baron Rossmore of Monaghan (Westenra family)

Hi. If you could take a look at my query on the above article's talkpage maybe you can make some sense of the discrepancies. Thanks. Quis separabit? 20:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening!

Have you changed your email address? Drop me a line.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Toad map.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Toad map.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

R&N Userbox

Hello, Counter-revolutionary! You can add the new userbox for the

Talkback) 11:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. When you recently edited

St. Mary's Christian Brothers' Grammar School, Belfast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Larkin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Monarchism. СЛУЖБА (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Line of succession to the former Albanian throne

The article Line of succession to the former Albanian throne has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poor quality article which says very little about its subject, one of the two external links is dead, the other does not put forward the line of succession.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've responded on the talk page. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ML 1975.jpg

Hi, Counter-revolutionary! I'm looking through some images on Wikipedia, and noted that you claim to be the copyright holder on that image. I was wondering if you could elucidate? It looks like it's a newspaper scan... is it from a pamphlet you published? Hopefully you can clear up the confusion regarding its source and authorship. Thanks for your time, Storkk (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:ML 1975.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ML 1975.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. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Maginness

Don't edit war at

WP:1RR sanction which means you can only make one revert in any 24 hour period. So don't be tempted to go back there and revert Gavin again because that would make you both guilty of edit warring. I'll get him to self revert, which is the correct thing to do in this case. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I've searched for an answer and most pages including the Collins dictionary insist the title should be used for Barons, see here [1]. I have found a UK government archive though here [2] which agrees with you. If you do a page search for Baron or Peers you will get to a section called "Peers" which explains it this way, "Peers - There are five ranks or degrees in the Peerage. These are in descending order of dignity: dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons. "The Right Honourable" should be applied only where the peer is a member of the Privy Council." So you may be right. I've also posted this guidance to Gavin's talk page. I hope it helps you sort it out. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Carson.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Better source request for File:TynanAbbey.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:TynanAbbey.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rockport school.png

Thanks for uploading

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 the

Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Buladelah.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:3rdAbercorn.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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 the

talk) 09:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:OMosley.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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 the

talk) 23:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Clarification motion

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ivanvector (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2014 (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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Roxborough Castle.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roxborough Castle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:TynanAbbey.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TynanAbbey.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hon.ed.carson.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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) 19:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:John Amery.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:John Amery.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   Di-replaceable fair use disputed
   |<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Brookeborough1.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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) 17:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Moyola.jpg

Thank you for uploading

image copyright tag

; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:BrianF.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BrianF.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   Di-replaceable fair use disputed
   |<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Sudeley.jpg

The file File:Sudeley.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 01:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of File:Nicholas H.jpg

The file File:Nicholas H.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 01:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Leka Zogu I

Hello, you edited

Leka, Crown Prince of Albania (born 1939) to remove information about Leka having attended Phillips Academy, stating that he instead studied at Aiglon College

. Could you please provide a source to this claim. Charles Fenyvesi's book Splendor in Exile, which I have in front of me, states the following:

"Leka had gone to high school in Alexandria, Egypt, and at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. He had studied economics at the University of Geneva in Switzerland at the Sorbonne, and had attended the British military academy Sandhurst." (page 235)

Thank you in advance. Ageofultron (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not right. Jason Tomes' book, at p 282, states 'Prince Leka...had completed his schooling in Switzerland...'. Further, the Zogu family's own website (https://albanianroyalcourt.al/leka-i-king-of-the-albanians/) says so: "After the war King Zog, Queen Geraldine and Prince Leka moved to Egypt, where they lived at the behest of King Farouk I. Leka was educated at Parmoor House. In 1946 he attended the British Boys School, where he continued until 1954. In Alexandria, Egypt, he attended Victoria College and then went to Aiglon College, Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland, where he graduated in 1956." Countless results on Google reveal Aiglon college as his school, including school photographs! I have never before heard this nonsense about him attending Phillips Academy, Mass. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lady Katherine Crichton.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lady Katherine Crichton.jpg. 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) 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]