User talk:SimonArlott/Archive

Image:Gang of Four at trial crop.jpg

Hi. Why is Image:Gang of Four at trial crop.jpg a candidate for speedy deletion? - Tεx τ urε 19:36, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not, Image_talk:Gang_of_Four_at_trial_crop.jpg is. Simon Arlott 19:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take care of it - Tεx τ urε 19:47, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution

Hi Simon. Edits from 82.41.218.107 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 08:06, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Robot?

Hi Simon. If you're using a robot you should probably look at Wikipedia:Bots. Rgds Rich Farmbrough 23:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a Robot :P Simon Arlott 07:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are not a Robot bur you sure are acting like one :-) Now why did you change all references to British and British Empire to United Kingdom? There are differences in usage of those terms, why else do you think there are separate articles? Give me a good reason, or else please undo your changes. Enjoy your time. --Ankur 18:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles linked to British, which is why I'm doing a lot of edits. I've not changed anything linking to British Empire afaik, and I'm linking British to the correct article where relevant according to the information on British. --Simon Arlott 18:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How can you work that fast? Are you sure you are not a bot :-). On a MUCH serious note. I just saw your edits. Some of them are incorrect!!! You are probably operating a bot or you don't know much of history. Some of your edits have already been reverted. Now please stop this. Your edits are not based on context. They are plain wrong. --Ankur 18:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here are examples of your incorrect edits. One misslink created by your bot (or you) from

British Empire to United kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=India&curid=14533&diff=0&oldid=0 another on (reverted) from Boer War to United Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Concentration_camp&diff=5882458&oldid=5881711

I don't know what happened on India, on Concentration camp that must have been a misplaced paste of "United Kingdom|". Please stop accusing me of being a bot. Where else have I made incorrect links or are you basing your request that I stop completely on a very small number of mistakes? --Simon Arlott 18:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whoa!! small number of mistakes? I did not look at more than 5-6 of your edits before I found 2 mistakes. That is a ratio of 1:3. One mistake every three edits. Or maybe, I was lucky?!! Yea you are not a bot. But you are fast :-) --Ankur 19:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you were just lucky, most of the edits I'm making are to change [[British]] to [[United Kingdom|British]] for articles about or referring to people which is hard to get wrong. --Simon Arlott 12:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II

If you are interested please cast a vote in the straw poll.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

ROGNNTUDJUU!'s mass editing of talk pages of people using bad-eu userboxes

"Why do you insult the citizens of other countries? Imagine someone had a template like that on the US or Nepal. It's just bad manners."

I'm an EU citizen
Please explain why "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it." is insulting anyone

Simon Arlott 21:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cross flags on your user page. This may offend others and is even considered a crime in many countries. I am sure you are able to express your valuable opinion in a respectful way. Imagine someone crossed the flag of your country - also a union. ROGNNTUDJUU! 21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My country's flag is the saltire, crossing something that's already a cross... is that a crime too? Stop mass editing talk pages like that and reverting the complaints made against you on your own - that's bad manners! Simon Arlott 21:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to delete whatever you want from your user page. I hoped I would find someone reasonable. ROGNNTUDJUU! 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I being unreasonable? You're the one deleting the comments I make from your user talk page before anyone can read them and see the response from all your comments accusing people of insulting whole countries. Simon Arlott 21:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This ROGNNTUDJUU! also tries to piss me off with edits which amount to vandalism. See my talk page. hasofer 22:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too, apparently his worldview is in risk of shattering because actual EU citizens are pointing out that they can be critical of a NGO of which their countries are a member. How very Stalinist of him. Unigolyn 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NGO means non-governmental. The EU is joined by governments, and their citizens become citizens of the EU, so it is not an NGO. ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The EU does not govern any citizens. The EU issues directives to member states who do the governing. The EU has no legal right to govern anyone, which they're trying to change by holding referenda after referenda on a constitution that the people it seeks to govern obviously want nothing to do with. Unigolyn 00:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The EU has courts its citizens can address to challenge their country's government. Do not cross symbols of entities you do not even understand. And do not move discussions to third parties user pages, ok? ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"many users keep their talk pages tidy - I prefer to keep discussions together" You're not keeping them together anywhere..., you're removing them Simon Arlott 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong. I copy remarks made at my user page to the user talk pages where I answer to keep everything together. Feel free to do so, too. ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you keeping anything together when this discussion is all over about 5 different user pages, and yours remains free of any debate at all? I reiterate, Wikipedia Talk is not some sort of instant messenger for having one-on-one chats with others - it's a public forum intended for discussion about Wikipedia and its users. You're the one who had issues with Wikipedians, yet you refuse to discuss it in a public way, on YOUR talk pages as common sense would dictate. Unigolyn 00:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep everything together with every single user because I do not like phenomena like this one where someone else interferes. You get your answers on your own page. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infrigement on ROGNNTUDJUU!'s user page

Vandalizing other users' pages speaks about as highly of someone as crossing flags. ROGNNTUDJUU! 22:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was copyright infringement, the use of the image cannot be considered fair use in the context of your user page, only in the article about the character. Simon Arlott 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another user just removed it and left me a polite message. Sorry, I was not familiar with the rule. ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]