User talk:Nevilledad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Nevilledad/header-talk

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Scan0001.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scan0001.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Interstate 66 (west). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but I remember reading that in the Charleston Daily Mail. Nevilledad 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. You are introducing uncited materials time and time again when it is wholly appearant that they are not factual. To note, just because a newspaper may note it, does not make it credible; newspapers are well known to make mistakes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Corridor G. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you start citing sources and stop introducing original research. Judging from your edits elsewhere and at Speed limits in the United States, where you are refuting cited materials with your own "observations" and "news articles," your edits will be more scrutinized by other editors. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits at Interstate 66 (west): Your edits were reverted because you provided no reliable sources or even a citation. Please provide both to verify the statements, and use the links given in the edit summary as a guide. This has gone on for quite some time, and surely by now you would have at least taken the effort to cite your materials and at least place them on the page. That's all I am asking. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UpDown

• Firstly, I'm well aware of the two birthdates, but there is nothing in the programme to suggest one is more likely than the other. If this were real life, then yes the book is more likley to be wrong than the person's family, but this isn't real life. It's fiction, and therefore we just present the two dates. It is not our place to tell the readers what is, in your view, more likely.

The second issue. I will watch the episode suggested, and comment further then. However, please look at www.updown.org.uk, and then the factfile for "All the King's Horses". In that it states "Dana works on Wall Street, so we presume he and Elizabeth still live in New York". This implies it is not actually stated where they live, so perhaps we should leave this out. --UpDown 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry you really are missing the point. Two dates are given for her birthdate, it is not for us to assume which is more likely to be real. Not our place at all, for a fansite maybe, but not for this. It is not for us to speculate, just report the facts. --UpDown 11:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you must understand this is fiction, therefore we cannot pick and chose what facts we like and decide what one are more likely. At the end of the day she has no birthday, she's fictional. Two birthdates are given in the series, neither are non-cannon, so both must be given. It is very simple. If you wish to interupt facts and make your own opinion, thats fine but Wikipedia is not the place for that. It is an encyclopedia and its must reports the facts, not what you believe to be the facts. --UpDown 09:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this further as frankly you are not listening. This is fiction, its all invented. The writers invented her birthday, and by mistake the 2nd time changed it. The writers hardly delibratley made her 2nd birthday wrong, it is a simple continuity error and frankly you're looking far too much in to it. Remember is it FICTION. --UpDown 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I think I have a solution. As you will see I have not yet tidied Lady Marjorie's article how I would like to (no infobox yet and so on). When I do I will remove the section on her birthday, there's no need for it to be as promiment as it is. Instead we say in a paragraph "Early life" that she was born on 6 May 1864 with then a <ref> note mentioning the other date. The <ref> note would also say what episodes both dates come from for reference. I'll try and do this at the weekend. --UpDown 07:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that UpDown isnt only messing around with me. sad to see.Zingostar 15:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corridor G

Please do not make up information for Wikipedia. Your earlier material about I-73 on Corridor G was deleted because it was inaccurate and you did not provide any cites. You then restored that false information and made up a bunch of stuff. Wikipedia is for facts, not fantasy. If you have something to add to the page, you need to provide a citation. Otherwise, you destroy the useful of the article. Brian Powell (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Buddy, I gathered that information from my local newspaper, the Charleston Gazette. Neville (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Then cite the articles where the information came from. That's all we've been asking for - list the exact article your information is from. By the way, I read the Daily Mail and Gazette on daily basis and saw no such articles on the dates you claimed in the edit history. Brian Powell (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is your final warning. Continuing to add in unreferenced information and original research, and then citing your store manager -- and your editing history shows a pattern of such edits with such edit summaries -- you will be sanctioned. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)i

I am so sick of this. I am trying my best to improve them articles. I gathered that information from the newspapers, my mothers friend who is a friend of the cousin of a senator. He also comfirmed such information. Then my store manager said she heard it too and shes very smart with a high school education and one year of college. I am not a vandal, I am not stirring up information. But I am reverting this time with a source. And as for the speed limits in Kentucky, I used to drive through there back in 2005 and 2006 and it was 65 mph on the speed limits, not 70. Neville (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The "cite" you provided was not a real or verifiable cite. You claim the information game from the Charleston Gazette earlier this month. What articles? What authors? Similarly, "my mothers friend who is a friend of the cousin of a senator" is not a real cite. If anything, who was the senator? After that many generations, how do you know the information was even accurate? Because you supposedly heard from your grocery store manager that she heard the same rumor? Brian Powell (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated addition of uncited materials and original research over a lengthy period. You have been given numerous warnings and notices, and you have failed to abide by the materials we have provided. In the future, please see what constitute reliable sources and how to cite materials. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 03:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is bullshit. All I was doing was trying to help out wikipedia. You all just are mad there are others out there that are smart Neville (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)