User talk:Wjfox2005

Welcome!

Hello, Wjfox2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tower42 skyline

Hi Wjfox,

Just thought I would congratulate you on your photo Image:Tower42skyline.jpg. I've tried taking this picture from Westminster Bridge(?) myself on two or three occaisions, but everytime I've decided that the result was too murky with poor atmospheric visibility. This one looks nice and clean. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)

Ahh sorry. I've just realised that perhaps you didn't take this photograph. In any case, this picture needs an appropriate Image copyright tag on its image description page. and possibly source information, as do the other images you've uploaded. Drop me a note on my talk page, if you need any help with this. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 13:18 (UTC)

This also applies for your other images. Yesterday I wanted to copy this photography to Wikimedia Commons (because we wanted to use it in de:), but unfortunately the copyright information was missing, so we could not use it. Maybe you load your images to commons direcly next time, that would be nice of you. Greetings from Germany. --Stefan ■ 22:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for PD! --Stefan ■ 12:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Londonbridgetower.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Londonbridgetower.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 05:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Londonskyline2012.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Londonskyline2012.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 07:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:51_Lime_Street.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:51_Lime_Street.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 08:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of pictures

Please do not add pictures to any category which is not specifically for images. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery and a picture on its own is not an article. Better still, please consider only adding images to Wikimedia Commons which is a photo gallery. Merchbow 00:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Brompton_Oratory.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brompton_Oratory.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Tower42skyline.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tower42skyline.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rossrs 15:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London is "very cosmopolitan"

Please explain to me why you keep inserting "very" into the London article. The claim that London is "very cosmopolitan" is hard to justify since there is no objective way to measure "cosmopolitan-ness", so how can we say that London is "very" cosmopolitan, while other cities (presumably) are merely cosmopolitan. Your addition makes the article less neutral. I should also let you know that Wikipedia has a policy against making more than three reverts every 24 hours. Please do not put this edit back into the London article. Thanks, Gwernol 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for pity's sake. It should be blindingly obvious that London is "very" cosmopolitan - just as New York is "very" dense and highrise, Tokyo is "very" futuristic, Paris is "very" beautiful, etc. You don't have to conduct some kind of test or study to come to this conclusion. Just take a stroll around the West End and you'll see the overwhelming multitude of different peoples and cultures flowing from literally every corner of the globe. Look at the countless different neighbourhoods around the city, occupied by French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek, African, Australian, Chinese, Russian, American, Arab, etc. etc... All of these people manage to live together in harmony. More languages are spoken in London than any other city in the world. I think you're being incredibly anal. Wjfox2005 19:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscrapercity.com

Hey, I recognised the username and I thought you maybe the mod off Skyscrapercity.com? --Erebus555 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's me! :-D Wjfox2005 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well welcome and dont be put off by all your images being deleted! It's safer just to add your own. - Erebus555 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?! I havent been able to get on to the forums for days now! I'm desperate to become the winner of "Who will post last?" - Erebus555 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London financial

London is indisputably the greatest financial center in Europe, so I reverted your recent change; please justify in discussion on London page if you wish to make such a change. MarkThomas 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but leave out any mention of Paris and New York...... *please*. This shouldn't turn into some kind of "City vs City" competition. Wjfox2005 23:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those points seem a bit unrelated and I would agree if I could see where you mean; in what sense is it running a businesscompetition? I see references to other world cities, but as London assuredly is one of the principal world cities, these seems reasonable? MarkThomas 22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The no.1 rule with Wikipedia is that everything is meant to be neutral. By mentioning Paris and New York, and saying London is "the greatest", etc. you're making it sound biased and skewed by your opinion. It's COMPLETELY unnecessary to mention other cities in the opening few paragraphs. Believe me, I'm a huge fan of London and I agree with you that it's the greatest - but you have to adhere to certain rules with Wikipedia. Also, I noticed that Heathrow was given as the busiest airport. This is plain wrong. Atlanta in the USA receives more traffic. London is only the busiest city if you include all 5 of the airports within its metropolitan area. Wjfox2005 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are letting your own biases creep in here. Heathrow is widely acknowledged to be the worlds busiest _international_ airport; true that US airports handle more traffic but mostly local. You also keep removing the financial centre information which is clearly true. My opinion is this is just vandalism on your part. MarkThomas 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for international air travel then fair enough. But coming back to the financial information - why do you need to state that it's the biggest in EUROPE, when it already says it's an "international leader in finance" and provides a direct citation showing it's #1 in the WORLD? Surely you can see it's completely superfluous! Wjfox2005 11:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've attempted to wikify the opening para - see what you think? :-) MarkThomas 10:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to be very reasonable with you, but you persist in vandalising the London page on spurious grounds and swearing / making offensive remarks on pages. Any future edits to the London page you make will be immediately reverted and reported as vandalism. You have been warned. MarkThomas 17:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next step is to report you. Please confirm this by vandalising London again if you want that to happen! MarkThomas 17:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay. Listen mate. Firstly, I apologise sincerely for my swearing and insulting on your talkpage. Believe me, I'm no troll, I don't deserve to be banned. In fact, I'm actually a moderator for another site, and I don't normally resort to such language... but I feel very strongly about London and in particular its position with regards to finance. I've been a contributor to the article for some time. It seemed that everyone had managed to agree on the opening few paragraphs and they hadn't really changed for several months. You then came along and proposed a couple of changes which I really, really didn't agree with, and which seemed very wrong.

Following your explanation, I'm fine with Heathrow being called the world's busiest airport, as you've explained this refers to international travel rather than local flights. I also don't mind a few more tourist attractions being added to the final paragraph either.

What I still strongly disagree with, however - and surely you will understand why - is the description of London as "the largest financial centre in Europe". Whilst this is of course true, it clearly doesn't go far enough! There are 7 continents on this planet. London is more than just the largest financial centre in one continent. It is rivalled only by New York in terms of global financial power... in fact the 2 cities have been described as the only genuinely global financial centres and this position is unlikely to change in the near future.

I could provide several more facts, for example the London foreign currency exchange is the largest in the world, with an average daily turnover more than New York and Tokyo combined. More than half (56 per cent) of the global foreign equity market is traded in London. There are also twice as many international banks in London as there are in New York. London is the biggest market in the world for derivatives traded over-the-counter, with 36 per cent of global turnover. In terms of hedge funds, London is the main centre. For metals, the IME in London is the main centre, and the price of gold is 'fixed' in London every day. For bond trading and international bank lending, London is the main centre (for example, when New York needed bonds for its subway, it turned to Deutsche Bank's office in London for the work). London also has the biggest insurance market (for example, the WTC twin towers were insured through Lloyds of London). Another point to note is that salaries in the City of London are now beginning to surpass those in Manhattan.

New York obviously has a greater role as a business centre and an economic power, but if we're talking specifically about the realm of financial services then London is arguably the leader and in terms of rivals there are certainly no other cities apart from New York which can match its power. In recent years London has further increased its lead over the likes of Tokyo, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. by just about every conceivable measure.

So please, surely you can see, it makes sense to revert the article back to how it was before. All I'm asking is that you change that one sentence - i.e. "an important settlement for around two millenia, London is now an international leader in finance".

Wjfox2005 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apology totally accepted. Interesting comments you make - I do agree there is contention that London / New York vie for "lead financial center of the planet", but I would hesitate to say outright that London is the world's leading financial centre. First off I think there would be so many disagreements and as your own comments above suggest, lots and lots of counter-claims and vicious debates. But I'm also doubtful myself that it could outright claim to the the worlds leading financial centre and I do take on board your points about distinguishing finance from business and so on. These opening bursts are always the focus of debate because we have to say in a few words what it is. I think most people still believe New York to be the world's leading financial centre, and we would probably want to avoid getting bogged down in the semantic debate about what exactly the difference between the financial centre and the business centre is in the opening burst. Not sure also that everyone would agree with you about that distinction, or that you are right to distinguish it so precisely. To take one example, does investment banking come under finance or business? If the former, New York wins hands down on it, with I believe 4 out of 5 of the worlds' leading investment banks... we could go on.... I'm not fiercely opposed to your sentence in your final para, but I suspect others will knock it over even if I leave it alone. I think a slightly more detailed, and just slightly more accurate one would work, and also that we should continue this on the London talk page. How about "an important settlement for around two millenia, London is now one of the world's most important international financial and business centres"? MarkThomas 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. But maybe just leave out the word "international" and have "an important settlement for around two millenia, London is now one of the world's most important financial and business centres". Also I agree it would be good to continue this discussion on the London talk page. Wjfox2005 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really would sooner you not do further edits on the intro until it's been agreed on the discussion page. I am sure this will annoy you, but on something as important as this, it's best to discuss and agree before changing it again. MarkThomas 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to John Lennon

Hi. You recently edited this article and appeared to blank content, without an edit summary explaining your decision to do so. This gives your edit the appearance of vandalism, which I'm sure is not the case. Regards, --Dweller 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, please see this ([1]). --Dweller 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Ruth Kelly

Hi Wjfox2005,
the reference you added as source for your recent edit in Ruth Kelly requires subscription and is therefore not a good source. Is there no other publicly open source available to reference your edit? Also, in order to avoid the impression of a partisan-based statement, it would be better to add an explaination (or a quote by herself) why Kelly took this decision. -- Túrelio 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits made to Skyscraper

Hi

I strongly agree the fact that a building is considered a skyscraper if over 150m. Yes, however, if you could possibly help to cite sources for this article, it would be great, this article (No offence) Has been written by many; whom I think some parts are their own source or a complete made-up nonsense, so therefore, I have tagged this article for having uncited sources. Till today, I am still referencing through books and reliable inernet resources for more sources and rephrases to be done.

If possible, you can link your cited sources for the minimum 150m criterion height of a skyscraper, and perhaps at the end of a paragraph, add a <ref_>_INSERT LINK HERE_<_/ref> (Without any underscores) for a reference source.

I appreciate your help in this article. Write me back if you can...

Thanks!

Someformofhuman 00:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:100bishopsgate.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:100bishopsgate.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. MER-C 11:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (UK)

Hello, Wjfox2005 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins

Image:Heron_tower_london.jpg

I have tagged Image:Heron_tower_london.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 07:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wormwood Street

Wormwood Street, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Wormwood Street satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wormwood Street and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wormwood Street during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Beetham Tower London.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beetham Tower London.jpg. 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 05:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Express

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Daily Express, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. I would add that your personal opinions on the newspaper are wholly irrelevant. There is plenty in the world that is unpleasant but we don't impose personal values on Wikipedia. TerriersFan 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:List of tallest buildings and structures in London

I only removed one link about Trafalgar Square pictures, which is irrelevant to a list that measures the tallest buildings and structures in London, as Nelson's Column is not on the list. If you disagree with my decision, read WP:EL; links should be useful, tasteful, informative, factual. How is a link to a website offering photographs of a London landmark not included as one of the tallest structures useful or factual to list about the city's tallest strctures? It is a useful link for other articles, just not this one. Cheers, Rai-me 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I've just realised what the problem is... I was talking about a couple of other links, but they're working fine now. My mistake, it was nothing to do with you! lol. Wjfox2005 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) Cheers, Rai-me 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Riverside south london.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Riverside south london.jpg. 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) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move back to Tower 42

To try and avoid an edit war, I've listing a requested move back to Tower 42. Please feel free to add your views to Talk:25 Old Broad Street. Paulbrock (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your images

Hello Will, if the follow images are your own work, it would be great if you go to the images decription pages on Commons and change the license from {{PD}} to {{PD-self}}. Thanks in advance!

--GeorgHH (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. :-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:20fenchurchstreet new.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:20fenchurchstreet new.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our 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 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:20fenchurchstreet new2.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:20fenchurchstreet new2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our 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 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whichever admin reads this, could I please have the following image DELETED:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/London_skyline_2012_panorama.jpg/1600px-London_skyline_2012_panorama.jpg

This was originally uploaded by me, it needs to be deleted now. Many thanks.

Hi, these images are on Commons, and you will need to ask there about deletion. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on 22nd century

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 22nd century. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Swissre_from_bishopsgate.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Swissre_from_bishopsgate.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Swissre from bishopsgate.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Swissre from bishopsgate.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Victoria and albert museum from thurloe square.jpg

File:Victoria and albert museum from thurloe square.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Victoria and albert museum from thurloe square.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Victoria and albert museum from thurloe square.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22nd century

It is acceptable to report others' predictions published in reliable sources, but you have restored a large section of predictions which have no attibution and are therefore original research to this article. They must be removed again. I42 (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 22 Marsh Wall

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 22 Marsh Wall. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Marsh Wall. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of 100 Bishopsgate

I have nominated 100 Bishopsgate, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Bishopsgate. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I reward you for helping many pages on skyscrapers in London. (PS I am also interested in skyscrapers) Willrocks10 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in science

Thanks for contributing so much to the 2011 in science article - it's easily one of the most detailed and complete of any of the "Years in science". Are you going to be adding to the 2012 article as well? I'm hoping to keep up the momentum in the coming year :p Michaelmas1957 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll be doing 2012! Btw, if you're interested in science/tech stuff, you might enjoy my personal website - http://www.futuretimeline.net/

Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I regularly follow this article as well and your contributions are much appreciated. As a side note, I have also noticed that you dont use edit summaries when editing the article. As it is in my watchlist, I am unable distinguish your edits from minor copyediting to addition of details. Cheers. Suraj T 04:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Suraj T 06:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Technology Barnstar
		For contributing so much to the 2011 in science article, helping to make it Wikipedia's most comprehensive and detailed year in science page yet. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you'll keep up the good work in 2012.

Thanks, much appreciated! I'll certainly be working on 2012 in Science :-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nanotubes (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) 11:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dione (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) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Combined Forces Command (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) 10:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifespan (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) 12:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoes and global warming

Hi. I reverted your addition to global warming about CO₂ from volcanoes. In my view, the article already makes it clear that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO₂. The issue of volcanic sources of CO₂ is discussed in the sub-article: greenhouse gas#Natural and anthropogenic sources. Enescot (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

skyline of London

Hi Will, your photo info for London_skyline_2012_panorama.jpg lacks the caption "Artist's impression of the central London skyline in 2015. Note: Tower Hamlets - the other area with a high concentration of existing and prospective high-rise buildings - is not shown." which apperas in Architecture of London - you may wish to add same to the photo file page thanks - user Nankai not logged in sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.27.58 (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, Wjfox2005. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. [2] [3] [4] --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earth's core (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) 13:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit flies (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) 11:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of Wiki page for Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite

Hi Wjfox2005.

Thank you for your contributions to the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite wiki page. It was gratifying to see that it had already been created and modified. Unfortunately, the information on it now is based on a previous version of the satellite and needs to be updated. I made a few simple changes last week, a couple of which you changed back. I'd like to be able to update the page so that it reflects the current reality: how can we work together to make this happen?

Thanks, Rvanderspek (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bird Brain (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) 12:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whisper (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) 11:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solar activity (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) 09:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mantle (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) 09:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear. 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) 09:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit flies. 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) 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery. 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) 09:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoengineering. 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) 09:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2016‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please join the discussion on the talk page. -- Irn (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wjfox2005. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Betelgeuse from 8au.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Betelgeuse from 8au.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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamb. 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) 09:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted changes

What's your problem about caps? As I see it every statement is the start of a sentence and the word "television" should certainly not be capitalised in the databox. You should have contacted me first before ploughing in with all your reverts. Jodosma (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks stupid when you have sentences beginning in lowercase. I've been managing those pages for years, the format was fine until now, and nobody ever complained about it. Before making this sweeping change, maybe discuss in the Talk pages first? Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences do not begin in lower case; they start with a date, see WP:DASHES as I indicate in many edits, and you are the one who is making sweeping changes not me. By the way you have made "very"(!) many changes which have not been welcome. Get off my back. And please talk to people before making mass reverts Jodosma (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop interfering with the established format of year in topic articles. Wjfox2005 is completely correct. Deb (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

: - - - - - - - - - DO NOT DELETE THIS

That kind of edit summary isn't going to make a shred of difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I've just posted on the Talk page :) Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017

Hi can you please stop removed add new 2017 page thank you GAJJR (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The event you added is a local event, not significant enough to be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wjfox2005. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi

the reason I reverted you at Hemophilia A is b/c Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) should be used, the reference you added is a trial...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Calling someone an "idiot" in an edit summary is not acceptable. Please don't do it again. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry. I have apologised to *riot_iori*. See my comments here.

Thanks, I appreciate it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next time BU Rob13 do something about the edit warring rather than just default to protection. I don't expect you to do be able to do any better, but just some theoretical advice on how you could actually do things better. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here. A short-term protection is doing something about the edit warring. Happy New Year. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, once again you made a mistake, but you don't admit to it, so no change there. 2018 will see changes you've never known before, and you will be one of the fore-runners whose behaviour will be exposed and examined in detail. Good luck!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on 2017. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. [5] Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk: Deacon Vorbis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in science

Hey, I know you really want to edit the Science 2018 article. When the lock is lifted, do you mind adding the following entries? Thanks.

9 January
- A new study indicates the genetic engineering method known as CRISPR may trigger an immune response in humans, thus rendering it potentially ineffective in humans.^[1]^[2]

References

^ "You May Already Be Immune to CRISPR". The Atlantic. 9 January 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2018.
^ "Most People May Already Be Immune to CRISPR". Popular Mechanics. 11 January 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2018.

15 January
- An artificial intelligence developed by Microsoft and Alibaba manages to achieve better average performance on a Stanford University reading and comprehension test than human beings.^[1]^[2]

References

^ "Computers are getting better than humans at reading". CNN. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Alibaba's AI Outguns Humans in Reading". Bloomberg. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.

Check the 2018 in science talk page.

Ditto. --110.93.240.148 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also you need to like archive some of this old stuff. Your talk page is getting really long. --110.93.240.148 (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Nicotinamide mononucleotide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Northern Irish abortion referendum

I was wondering as Northern Ireland is part of the UK, I was considering adding their recent abortion referendum and the outcome plus what happened to Northern Irish human rights campaigners at the Supreme court today to 2018 in the United Kingdom. Feel free to contact me if you think it should be added or not. D Eaketts (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit fly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wjfox2005. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolling"

It's not a good idea to accuse people of trolling unless you're very sure... this edit summary is unwarranted. I provided an explanation for each of the edits that I made at 2019 in the United Kingdom, but you provided none for any of your reversions. Here's my thinking of what should be included, taken from another talk page: "I ask anyone who's thinking of adding things first to go to 1918 in the United Kingdom and look at the type of things that are important enough for that year. In particular, read the entries for May 1918".

I don't mind if an editor disagrees with my edits; I don't mind being reverted if an editor provides a reasonable explanation; I do mind being accused of trolling and I don't like being reverted without any rationale being provided. I recommend not reverting without explanation (unless it's clearly vandalism) and being wary of accusing editors of bad faith. EddieHugh (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Facial recognition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Steel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Please discuss on [6] why the edit [7] should be included. WP:RY and WP:Recentism issues. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wp:ry

You intervene when things get deleted in 2020 while not follwoing wp:ry, why didn't you do anything when things used to get deleted all the time form 2005-2016 articles until wp:ry become less strict, and those editors lost interest? and you know exactly what i am talking about... 2020 is over-flooded as covid stats, thats not the case in 1918 article when Spanish flu happened and killed 80 million + while covid hasnt even killed 0.5 million. anyway just noting this, no need to discuss this, i have lost interest in improving 2020 articles under old guidelines. Carry on. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in science

Hi there, just wanted to let you know I was in the process of restoring the entry that you previously added to the article, but it came up as an edit conflict and I saw you had already added it again. Definitely wasn't intending on removing your entry. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries :) Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading

The citation says the first in the world to be vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine. It does not say the first in the world apart from trials. The Russians claim to have already vaccinated thousands of people with another vaccine. Either change the wording to reflect the citation or remove it. Deb (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the references slightly. The Russia vaccine is still in clinical trials. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"first person in the world to receive the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine outside of a trial", which you quoted, confirms what I said. It's also a matter of opinion whether the Russian vaccine is in clinical trials. They are certainly conducting a mass vaccination programme, and they approved it before that started. Deb (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the New York Times (the additional citation I provided): "...Britons the first people in the world to receive a clinically authorized, fully tested vaccine." If the New York Times isn't a good source, then what is? Oh, and from the Telegraph: "I can confirm the UK is the first country in the world to have a clinically approved coronavirus vaccine for supply." Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of VP and other matters

Hi there, I noticed that when I proposed to add the swearing-in of Harris as a milestone to the 2021 in the United States, you were saying its ok. I talked to the person who reverted beforehand, he said that as long as there's consensus, then add again. But that person reverted the edit. Please advise. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've grown tired of the continued pushing to make the 2021 in the United States article different from the other Year in the United States articles, based on giving Kamala Harris special treatment. Do whatever yas want. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, upon further research, there are indeed 'some' of those Year in the United States articles that 'do' include the veep. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in the United Kingdom

Hello Wjfox2005, Please could you explain how I could improve the phraseology of the 2021 in the United Kingdom article. I do not intend to use the incorrect terms. Thank you. StarWarsLiverpoolWikipedian (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that you just copy and paste the news titles, using the same exact wording.

Example. Let's imagine you posted this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57879475

The news title is "Liverpool stripped of Unesco World Heritage status".

This looks fine on the BBC website (because it's just a short news title!). But for a Wikipedia entry, it needs to be proper English, like an actual sentence.

For 2021 in the United Kingdom, it needs to read like somebody describing an event happening right now. So it should look like this:

Liverpool is stripped of Unesco World Heritage status.

Notice the difference? The word "is" between Liverpool and stripped? And the full stop.

CORRECT:

Liverpool is stripped of Unesco World Heritage status.

WRONG:

Liverpool stripped of Unesco World Heritage status

Another example:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57909188

WRONG:

UK and France agree deal to tackle rise in Channel crossings

CORRECT:

A UK-France deal is agreed to tackle a rise in Channel crossings.

So... don't just copy-paste the titles.

Thank you!

Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shaun Bailey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm Dunutubble. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:2022 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This edit is a personal attack. Please refrain from insulting other users. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

WP:NPA applies to edit summaries like this. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Zara Aleena： - Wikipedia

Why did you change the number 5 to the word "five"? New hordak from 2018 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers should usually be written out as the full word for values less than 10. For values of 10 or more, just the number is fine. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

@Wjfox2005: afternoon. There is currently a vote going on at Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on Lead sentence about whether to exclude calling her a serial killer. You previously commented [8] on the Letby talk page on a similar issue and discussed with one of the involved editors saying: ...it gives too strong an impression of doubt or uncertainty in the case. So thought you may be interested in voting? 213.31.104.219 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Letby

Hi there, just a heads up. In this edit [9] you changed the text of the sentence away from that in the RfC close. Because RfCs are a key process for determining consensus on Wikipedia, that change would need a new consensus at the same level. That is, a new RfC. Also, to note that the above "heads up" is WP:CANVASing by a banned user conducted immediately after their previous IP had just been blocked for canvassing [10]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

33ABGirl (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Was browsing history of 2024 and found you. It's a small world. Firestar464 (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi there :) Yes, I'm active on 2024 and 2024 in the United Kingdom, as well as 2024 in the United States, plus also 2024 in science. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "You May Already Be Immune to CRISPR". The Atlantic. 9 January 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2018.

[2] "Most People May Already Be Immune to CRISPR". Popular Mechanics. 11 January 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2018.

[3] "Computers are getting better than humans at reading". CNN. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.

[4] "Alibaba's AI Outguns Humans in Reading". Bloomberg. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]