User talk:Green Tentacle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Football Conference.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Football Conference.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Westfield Derby.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Westfield Derby.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC 12 1989-2002.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC 12 1989-2002.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC 15 1982-2002.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC 15 1982-2002.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC 18 1982-2002.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC 18 1982-2002.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC PG 1982-2002.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC PG 1982-2002.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC R18 1982-2002.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC R18 1982-2002.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC U 1982-2002.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC U 1982-2002.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC Uc 1985-2002.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC Uc 1985-2002.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Observer front page.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Observer front page.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. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Book of Mozilla, 3-31.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Book of Mozilla, 3-31.png. 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. w^{L<speak·check>} 21:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Book of Mozilla, 12-10.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Book of Mozilla, 12-10.png. 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. w^{L<speak·check>} 21:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A favour request

Hi,

Thank you for deleting Image:Chester Old College.jpg, as I had copied it to Commons, obsoleting the original image.

As your user page suggests that you are very willing to help, I would like to ask you a related favour. I have also copied another one of my images, Image:Derby Midland Station Departures Board.jpg, to Commons; could you please delete the now-unneeded Wikipedia version of the image?

Also, both the images I transferred to Commons have a tag (added by the tool I used to upload it) saying that they need to be reviewed. I don't really understand what this means, but is it something you are able to do?

Thank you muchly! - Green Tentacle (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the local image. The reason why the bot tags the images so is because people can upload non-free images or copyright violations to the Commons; also, the bot isn't smart enough to properly categorize them. Normally a "trusted user" on Commons needs to review the image, but since these two are properly categorized and obviously have licenses that check out, you can go ahead and remove the tag. east.718 at 19:59, March 31, 2008

Cool; I've done that. Thanks! - Green Tentacle (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:University of Chester coat of arms.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:University of Chester coat of arms.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I love bots. Warning me that an image I orphaned and I listed for deletion is orphaned. Isn't that nice?! - Green Tentacle (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Isthmian_League.jpg

I have tagged Image:Isthmian_League.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, if you bothered looking at the history of the image, you'd find that I did not add the fair use rationale. There was no requirement for one back when I uploaded the image. I know the rationale isn't valid now, but it really is nothing to do with me. I just do not understand why the original uploader of the image is always held responsible for any subsequent changes to fair use rules that invalidate every image on Wikipedia. I'm sick of it. It would be much easier — and more useful to Wikipedia — if editors who find invalid fair use rationales fixed them, rather than whining to users who have probably forgotten that they uploaded the image in the first place. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Asa Dotzler.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Asa Dotzler.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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 [[ Talk:Image:Asa Dotzler.jpg|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. Polly (Parrot) 00:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting. This image was definitely available on Flickr under the the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Licence when I originally uploaded it, though the page now bears no such licence. I uploaded the image at the same time as Image:Mitchell Baker.jpg, which was taken by the same photographer at the same event and was also available under the same licence. In fact, another user uploaded exactly the same image to Commons (without crediting me as the original uploader), leading to my original image on Wikipedia being deleted as it was a duplicate. The Flickr page for that image has also lost its the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Licence. The photographer has obviously decided to retract their licensing of the image under Creative Commons. I don't the legal ins and outs of this (can someone retract a licence?), but if Image:Asa Dotzler.jpg is to be deleted, so should Image:Mitchell Baker.jpg. Likewise, if one is kept, so should the other (presumably both stored on Commons). - Green Tentacle (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No a creative Commons license can't be revoked see here. That though is the advantage of uploading Flickr images to Commons, they usually get reviewed within 24hrs to ascertain if the licensing is correct. That way at least if at some future date the Flickr licensing is changed then we can be pretty certain that at the time of upload it was indeed under a free license. Polly (Parrot) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of a moot point now, since someone completely ignored the {{hangon}} tag and the reasoning on the image's talk page and deleted it anyway. - Green Tentacle (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is very frustrating when license changes occur, all I can advise is that in future you upload Flickr images to Commons or use web citation if you upload to here, that way at least you should have some evidence of the license you uploaded under. Polly (Parrot) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably would upload to Commons now, but I don't think I even knew it existed in 2005! - Green Tentacle (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Qualified Teacher Status

Hello - I see you undid some earlier edit on this QTS article. I can see that this was in good faith, as you reverted to what was previously the requirement. However, since the most recent edition of standards for initial teacher training, the requirements have been amended slightly to those which were written in by the unregistered user. I have now added a reference linking to the TDA to clarify this point as it is likely to be a common mistake due to the all-too-frequent changes by the TDA of such issues. Tafkam (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know about the change. - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OCR

Bottom line is, you must discuss a potentially contraversial move before making it, and arrive at a consensus. Please do so on the article's talk page. Per the moving page, "WARNING! This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding." _TalkIslander 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I resent you accussing me of edit warring. All I did was move an article. As explained in my edit summary (and have done again on Talk:OCR (examination board)), all I was doing was following Wikipedia policy, which clearly states the article should be at its spelled out name. The bottom line is that there is nothing to discuss and there is absolutely nothing controversial about this move. The policy makes it quite clear that I am correct. - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page and the article's talk page. _TalkIslander 22:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your undiscussed changes to University of Chester

I have reverted your changes to the referencing style in University of Chester. It was an undiscussed change that altered the style of all the references for no apparent good or compelling reason. If you think the referencing style you changed them to should be used instead of the quite common used in all areas of Wikipedia, please discuss them on the article's talk page before reinstating them. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what actually happened. The user before me, Gaius Cornelius, changed the referencing system without consultation and I changed it back. This perfectly follows Wikipedia's guidelines: it says in Wikipedia:REF#Ref tags and punctuation (which I linked to my edit summary), 'if an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it'. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. My apologies. I must say, however, that I find that style highly ugly in comparison with the punctuation before the footnote style (which I also dislike, but have come to live with), and I suspect it will cause some raised eyebrows if the article is put forward for FA status. I was going to revert it back for you, but I see you've done it for me. Once again, my apologies. It was brought about by noticing an unusual and (as I said) rather ugly formatting, from my point of view.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I personally prefer the footnote before the punctuation style because the footnote invariably is linked to that sentence and it therefore seems logical that it should be 'part' of it and it also makes more sense on occasions where footnotes are used mid-sentence. Also, it's what I used to and I think it looks pretty! - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, no harm then. There's no accounting for taste (I'm used to "Harvard" referencing, though I know it as APA style.)  DDStretch  (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

1939 FA Charity Shield

How do you know Portsmouth F.C. won the shield I can't find the result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 August 2008

I assume you're referring to this edit I made to the 1939-40 in English football page. As I made the edit three years ago, I can't remember where I got the information from. It could well have been the FA Community Shield page, which looked like this at the time and listed Portsmouth as the winners. Having searched around a bit, I can't find any evidence that the Charity Shield was played at all that year, but I did find out that the result listed on the page matches the FA Cup final score of that year, so I presume that someone accidentally added the FA Cup score to the list. This is particularly plausible as the same mistake had been made with the 1946 and 1947 results, which I removed at the time. I note that the 1939 error has since been removed from the FA Community Shield page, but not the 1939-40 in English football page. I have now rectified this. - Green Tentacle (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Digital terristal

the channel list is still there it is in it own article, the channels are not vital to be on the main article please go to talk it has already been discussed--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments posted eleven minutes apart is not a discussion. - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:What Do I Wish for Now.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:What Do I Wish for Now.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC 15 2002 onwards.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC 15 2002 onwards.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC U 2002 onwards.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC U 2002 onwards.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC 12 2002 onwards.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC 12 2002 onwards.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC 12A 2002 onwards.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC 12A 2002 onwards.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC 18 2002 onwards.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC 18 2002 onwards.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBFC PG 2002 onwards.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFC PG 2002 onwards.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

University of Chester

Hi there. Would you mind explaining what it is that I removed from University of Chester that led you to revert me? There are a number of style and markup changes that I fully intend to restore. Thanks. — mholland (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. It was mainly the two statements that it is one of the oldest higher education institutions in the country, which was fully referenced and the highlighting of the fact that Chester's situation regarding Chester's status turned around completely between the 1930s and 1960s (the paragraph seems confusing without that). Many perfectly valid external links were also removed and, as you said, some of the formatting was made a bit messy. Thanks. - Green Tentacle (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed the Univerity of Chester site from the list of External Lists, and I ask you to not include it again, as doing so goes against wikipedia guidelines and policies. Read WP:EL, in particular points 3 and 4 of section 1 (Important points to consider) and section 7.2 (References and citation). You will see that these clearly imply that when the University of Chester site has already been linked to (indeed to the exact same page on that site), then a link should not be included in the External Links. In the same context, it is generally looked upon as a good move to try to minimize as many External Links as possible (see references to the points I've already provided), and so some of the ones in that section should be converted if possible into full-blown references and used in the text, thus removing them also from the External Links section.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty typical Wikipedia: a stupid guideline is considered more important than the reader. A reader is clearly going to expect an External Links section to contain a link to the institution in question.

Nevertheless, I note that the guideline says 'include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox' (emphasis mine). I also note that the guideline says that 'common sense' should be used. I am therefore invoking some common sense and restoring the link. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for additional views on the matter at WP:UKGEO, and I wonder whether you are too easily invoking WP:IAR here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ddstretch (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 December 2008

That sounds sensible, though I find your assumption that I will simply revert you again offensive. I have to disagree with you on my use of WP:IAR, though. Any rule that states that an external links section should not contain an external link to whatever the article is about is inherently stupid. - Green Tentacle (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response on my talk page. I can see that the external links are now being discussed generally. Just by way of response to your other concerns:

The claim that Chester is "one of the oldest higher education institutions in the country" isn't actually referenced. The source supplied is a university press-release which (in its Notes to Editors) contains the claim that Chester was "one of Britain’s first purpose-built teacher training colleges". I would be very happy to adjust the article to include this claim instead, unless a proper source for the current claim can be found.

I thought the link to the Robbins Report would be sufficient, should a reader want to know more about Britain's HE in the 1960s. I'll settle for finding a source to reference the "turnaround" in the sector, and just adjust the clumsy phrasing ("the UK was massively expanding its higher education capacity") if that's all right.

I'll leave it until the current EL discussion is more advanced before making any changes at all. — mholland (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Thank you also for your support on the WP:UKGEO discussion. I see the article now has no external links section at all. Sigh...

The best source I could find to Chester's age is http://www.chester.ac.uk/about/, though I'm sure I saw I better one once (unfortunately, I wrote most of the article before referencing was widespread in Wikipedia and have had to add all the references in later).

As to the Robbins Report, it's not a turnaround in the UK's higher education section (it's pretty much always been growing, though at different rates), but a turnaround in Chester's situation: it went from being threatened with closure to being proposed to join a very small (at the time) number of British universities. - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)