User talk:Rivercard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File copyright problem with File:Daveulliott.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Daveulliott.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:DEVILFISH paperback 1.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DEVILFISH paperback 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Daveulliott.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Daveulliott.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Daveulliott1.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Daveulliott1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 22:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Volkswagen Corrado, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  • That's fair enough if you don't want to take The Corrado Net as a reliable source (even though its factual database is compiled by Corrado enthusiasts) - I understand that. But you also erroneously deleted additional information that was referenced to the BBC and to BBC film sources, which are reputable and reliable sources, and also an image that has Wikipedia citation. Thank you. Rivercard (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Volkswagen Corrado, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

  • If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
  • If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Links such as the Top Gear video on Metacafe are clear copyright infringements. You must not link to these in any way on Wikipedia. Biker Biker (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Well interestingly, the BBC's own attitude is somewhat more prudent and understanding; this, from the BBC's own news site:

'The BBC's director of Future Media and Technology, Ashley Highfield, said the deal was "not about distributing content like full-length programmes; YouTube is a promotional vehicle for us".

Mr Highfield said the BBC would not be hunting down all BBC-copyrighted clips already uploaded by YouTube members - although it would reserve the right for example to swap poor quality clips with the real thing, or to have content removed that infringed other people's copyright, like sport, or that had been edited or altered in a way that would damage the BBC's brand.

"We don't want to be overzealous, a lot of the material on YouTube is good promotional content for us," he said.'

And (also from the BBC):

Intellectual property: protecting BBC copyright and trademarks The BBC wishes to protect its own material particularly if it is likely to be commercially exploited by others online. This extends to web site content and to domain names (urls or web site addresses) whether or not they are connected to a site. However, at the same time the BBC does not want to discourage genuine "fan sites", provided these do not confuse the public into thinking they are official BBC sites or encourage large scale copying of BBC material.'

But if you want to err on the side of a caution that the even BBC don't take, then that may also be prudent.

Also, the earlier deleted Corrado Net database information on the technical specification of the VW Corrado is drawn directly from Volkswagen's own network dealership issued Corrado handbook and - as there is no longer any other official Volkswagen issued material on the car (because it is so long out of production) - why is reference to this officially issued tech/spec information not deemed appropriate?

Finally, what was the reason for deleting the Corrado related 'Trivia' section that referenced The Independent, the NME and MSN editorial?
Rivercard (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: If the removal was in line with the Wikipedia criteria for deletion of trivia, then I see point.

WP:POINT[edit]

You could maybe have claimed innocence at an earlier stage, but this edit is an obvious violation of WP:POINT. Really, please stop and spend time on productive contributions. If you wish to discuss the quality of sources or article content, please do so at the relevant article's talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


I'm sorry but that is incorrect. The deletion of personal website material as a source of reference is a well established primary point of Wikipedia contributiuons, see - WP:OR - 'The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist'. And the fact that material from those websites are then regurgitated by other published sources such as The Telegraph (your example), does not change the nature of the source or it's elegibility for use on Wikipedia.

You haven't stated explicitly what you mean but from what has been said I'll presume you mean that you think my edit of Biker Biker's BMW R1100GS entry is a response to his edit of my contribution to Volkswagen Corrado - but it isn't. Though the two edits are not unconnected. The connection is this: as a fan of bike's myself I was interested to see what an editor with the name 'Biker Biker' might have contributed, so I clicked through. There I found Biker Biker's entries, which I thought were perfectly fine and interesting.

But - in the middle of the entry on the BMW R1100GS - there was/is a section on the drummer in a rock band on a 'self-healing trip' after deaths is his family. Now, this is clearly not relevant to an entry on the BMW R1100GS.

==Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road==
Neil Peart, who is the drummer and lyricist for the Canadian rock band Rush, used an R1100GS for a 14 month, 55,000-mile (89,000 km) self-healing trip,[5] which he made in the late 1990s following the deaths of his wife and only daughter.[6] The trip was documented in the book Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road.[7]

This is obviously a breach of Wikipedia criteria for non-relevance and trivia - the inclusion of which is not obviated by the trivia being referenced or integrated into the entry.

IMPORTANT NOTE 1: my knowledge of what Wikipedia constitutes non-relevant was advanced by Biker Biker's reference to the material added to the Corrado page, which caused me to double-check Wikipedias relevence and trivia criteria. So Biker Biker's own reference to what consitutes relevance was the reason I already had it in mind.

IMPORTANT POINT 2 - you may have noticed from my talk page response on this subject that I have accepted Biker Biker's deletion of the material I added: "Addendum: If the removal was in line with the Wikipedia criteria for deletion of trivia, then I see the point."

So, the crucial thing is not the reason why one look's at an entry but what one find's when one gets there and then whether or not any improvements can be made. It is the very interconnectedness of Wikipedia that you seem to have a problem with and which you are misidentifying as 'prove a point'. But that interconnectedness is all part of the nature of Wikipedia.

There seems to be something of a tag-team going on between Biker Biker and Dennis Bratland regarding this BMW R1100GS edit and I think the mistaken fixation on the 'prove a point' issue is skewing objectivity on the inclusion of the 'Ghost Riders: Travels on the Healing Road' material.

The paramount thing is the relevance of the edit not the editor. It is not useful for you to attempt to personalise things.

DRN[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "BMW R1100GS". Thank you. -- TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. see [1] Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis. Thanks for the note. Always nice to hear from you. However, if you are referring to the use of the word 'aggressive' in the lighthearted aside I made about riding suits on thr BMW R1100GS noticeboard, could I refer you back to your own quote on the BMW R1100GS [Talk] page in which you said: "I aggressively deleted mention of the movie as trivia," - Dennis Bratland'.
So, as you can see, I was only taking you at your own word and at your own description of your editing style. I hope this helps clear things up in your mind somewhat.
Also, I think it is very important to note a crucial distinction: even over guidelines on things such as good faith, Wikipedia policy clearly states that this 'does not prohibit discussion and criticism.' And criticism is not the same as uncivility.
As I say, I think it is a very important (if subtle) distinction. With particular regards, Rivercard (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Prepared for the Worst: Selected Essays and Minority Reports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harpers (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) 10:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to remove personal attacks[edit]

Please go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#BMW R1100GS .28Reopened.29 and delete the personal attacks contained in your comments. The warning, in large bold letters at the top, when you edit that page, says "This page is not the place to flame other users". Discuss the topic, not other editors. When you're done with that, please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Threaded discussion and delete the personal attack and accusations of malfeasance from there. Once again, that is not the place to discuss other editors; the topic is the RfC.

Finally, if you think my editing behavior violates policy, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and make your complaint there.

It would be much better for you to edit your own comments to remove the off-topic personal attacks, rather than for someone else to have to edit your comments for you as the result of a AI/N complaint against you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Counter request to remove 'Request to remove personal attacks'[edit]

In reference to this misuse of a Wikipedia advisory and also the misidentification of 'personal attack', please note your own comment on this subject: 'Calling a bad argument a bad argument is not a personal attack, and pretending that it is a personal attack is also disruptive.'- Dennis Bratland (see - Talk)
So it does not advance any discussion to misuse Wikipedia advisory. Or to mistake criticism (which is allowed - see below) with uncivility. The two are not the same. Please keep the distinction in mind.
Important to note, even over guidelines such as good faith WP:AGF, Wikipedia policy on that page clearly states that this "does not prohibit discussion and criticism." And so it is already established that criticism is not the same as uncivility.
(But in further reference to this, please see your own comments toward me on the BMW R1100GS 'Talk' page -
(1) "All I have to add to this interminable debate is WP:SNOW. ...this is absolutely silly." (2) "drawing out interminable arguments that have no chance of success is disruptive." (3) "Statements like '...' are bizarre, even laughable." (4) "...drawing out interminable arguments that have no chance of success is disruptive.")
So are you saying that your own use of these terms toward me such as 'silly', 'bizarre' and 'laughable' fall into the above description of criticsm or the one of uncivility?
Also worthy of note is your misuse of Wikiepdia policy guidelines such as WP:OWN and WP:SNOW (see - Talk) without their being any evidence whatsoever of either being breached. This comes across as an attempt to foreclose, shut down or inhibit debate, which you may or may not know is also contrary to Wikipedia policy guidelines on these matters.

And, finally, if you think my editing behavior violates policy, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and make your complaint there. Rivercard (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding personal attacks by User:Rivercard. The thread is Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban. Thank you. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello back. The relevant discussion has attracted the contributions of other editors, and who clearly do not agree with your case - see: Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban - so I hope this will enable you to draw a line under this matter.
Rivercard (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Dennis Brown's talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, hi, I genuinely wasn't aware that that was classed as canvassing because in the discussions concerning this before I was advised to notify the editors that had contributed to relevant discussions - and also that notifications via 'talk' pages were okay. As I said in the 'talk' page messages to the editors involved, I wasn't exactly sure of who should or should not be notified so rather than make the mistake of not notifying the people involved I instead notfied them all - as far as I'm aware there were none left out. So really it wasn't a case of selective picking and choosing, it's just that of the editors previously involved all seemed to have their own ideas on the subject which they came to independentally.
(I'm sure that in the original Noticeboard discussion someone pointed out that notifications via 'talk' pages wasn't classed as canvassing, but I'll make sure I the double-check that.) Thanks, Rivercard (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've just had a check through and the only one I can see that wasn't notified was someone called 842U, but this was an editor who seemed heavily in favour of the case I was putting so I think that shows that I wasn't trying to be selective. Also, I found the quote on the original Noticeboard discussion where I was fisrt accused that says, 'His [meaning mine] "canvasing" wasn't canvasing, it was on the talk page of someone who had already participated in the DR 4 days ago.' I genuinely took that to mean that 'talk' page notifications were within bounds. Regards,

Rivercard (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Dennis Brown's talk page.

Okay, thanks. Glad that's cleared up!
    • Quick note, usually better to keep a conversation in one place, which is why I use the {{Whisperback}} templates, just to redirect you to that page. If we start a conversation here, I will keep it here, if we start it there, I usually try to keep it there. Note the template on the top of my talk page. Its a pretty good way to do it, but not the only way. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see. I wasn't sure what that 'whisperback' was, sorry. Let's keep it here then. In fact, for future reference, if I miss something it's always because I'm not as familiar with code and procedure as some editors (although, to be honest, I don't think that undermines the basis for particular argument being advanced). There's a couple of important points regarding your recent message on the complaint board I opened, so I'll go there to leave that now. Rivercard (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You didn't notify Transporterman, or Biker Biker, to name two. There are several others you left out of the loop. Must I make a complete list? If you weren't picking and choosing editors, it certainly looks like that's what you were doing. Especially given the history of canvassing for the DRN, first with 842U and then the highly suspect involvement of Iglooflame. It seems obvious to me that the reason you kept on canvassing was that you got away with it before and assumed administrators would let you go on getting away with it.

The problem with canvassing is that it taints the consensus process. Why on Earth would I accept a DRN decision against me? Knowing that the decision was based on at least two editors who were there due to a grudge against me. I've been on Wikipedia for 7 years. Don't you think I've made a few friends in that time? Don't you think I could have invited a few of them to stack the vote too? But I refrained, and look at this mess. The discussion is so tainted with biased editors that I don't see any hope of a good resolution. The moral is: stop canvassing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, you've missed 3 very important and crucial points:

(1) The only user who has accused me of cavnvassing is you, here, and other editors decided it was an unfounded allegation (as they also found your other allegations) - 'His [Rivercard's] "canvasing" wasn't canvasing, it was on the talk page of someone who had already participated in the DR 4 days ago.'

Which means that your new allegation of 'the reason you kept on canvassing was that you got away with it before and assumed administrators would let you go on getting away with it', is as false as the first allegation, because, if you again read the comments on your original ANI, you'll find that no one agrees with you. This is not complicated stuff.

(2) Out of the editors previously involved, two were genuinely mistakenly missed off the list of notification - one was a user who was involved right at the very beginning nearly a month ago (hence the easy and genuine mistake of neglecting their involvement) - and one editor called 842U, who was actually the editor who most favoured my case, so clearly I was not favouring one over another. Again, this is not complicated reasoning.
(3) You appear to have mistaken Dennis Brown's message here on this 'talk' page as an accusation - it isn't - as he has said himself:

'I wasn't scolding you, just informing you and pointing to the guideline on it. You said you weren't sure who to notify, and it is common for people to not know the policy on it. If you had only selected certain editors (even if random) it would have come back and caused problems, so as a general rule, it is just better to tell anyone that participated, as a preventative measure. I really didn't think you were trying to canvas, I just didn't want you to get accused of it.' - Dennis Brown 11:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC) -

Well, Dennis Brown and I can live in hope that I won't be accused of it, but you always seem to be at hand with further false allegations.

  • These points are not complicated and should really not present any problem being understood: But, just in case: one more time
    (1) Accusations by you of 'canvassing' investigated and found to be false? - Yes.
    (2) Users genuinely missed off the notification list that favoured BOTH sides of the case? - Yes.
    (3) Continuing accusations of canvasing despite all of the above - Yes.
  • Now if you expended as much time explaining WHY you spent over 3 weeks arguing for a case which you have ADMITTED you did NOT believe in and that you knew to be FALSE - then I would perhaps give greater weight to your arguments and find it easier to take advice on moral lessons.
  • Please could you stop hounding me with false allegations, especially when they appear to be an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you know full well you have been arguing in bad faith for so long. Don't you think it's bad enough that I've spent so much time gathering evidence that proved your assertion that the R1100Gs was unique was false? - when you already knew it was false?
Rivercard (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Final word[edit]

  • You both are pushing me to request a topic ban for both of you. I have no idea if the info should be included or not, that is what WP:DR and WP:RFC are for. You both have been hostile to each other and dragging all of us along in multiple ANIs and DRs, and honestly, most outsiders see you both as equally culpable in the disruptions, more or less. You both have droned on and on about each other so much that no one CARES about the actual content dispute itself, and the sheer length of your replies and comments make it a chore to read, which is why so few participate in the discussions. The possible benefit is outweighed by the effort required. The content itself is petty when compared to the disruption you both, equally, have caused. Is it going to kill the article if the information is there or not there? No? Either way, does it fundamentally change enhance or diminish the understanding of the subject matter? No? Exactly. It is a trivial detail that doesn't hurt anyone or anything, whether or not it stays. Solve the dispute like men. Flip a coin, play Rock, paper, sissors, fight to the death with Bat'leths, I don't care HOW you solve it, but solve it yourselves. You both need to start acting like adults and work with each other to compromise or one of you simply walk away. And I don't care who, because as far as I can tell, you are both equally in the wrong here. And don't bother replying, I'm officially beyond "discussion" on these points. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I offered two compromises, and both were rejected. As a third compromise, I would even be willing to forget about BMW R1100GS altogether if I was convinced that this would not become a precedent used to delete well-sourced sections from more articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I've been suggesting that R1100GS be forgotten about for over 3 weeks, so if you now agree, then we'll agree to leave it as it is. How easy was that. (Though 'well-sourced'? Does that really apply when 2 of the 4 primary sources did not even mention the bike by name? I only ask...) Rivercard (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Now convince me this won't set a precedent, and we're done. One big problem is that I know (maybe you don't) that 842U will be back, deleting more "trivia". This misinterpretation of policy must have a stake driven through its heart lest it spreads, and I don't see how you have the power to prevent that. Deleting WP:WPACT is probably going to be necessary. It's too bad: WP:WPACT did a lot of good until you came along seeking revenge against Biker Biker. (WP:POINT) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't have to convince you of anything; and, in fact, it is another one of your impossible requests: other Wikipedians, for some reason, have to convince you of the future absence of something? But to not enact a reasoned solution because of an uprovable supposition about unknown behaviour is simply self-defeating. As Ravenswing said to you on the ANI regarding your similar supposition about my motives, 'Well, so you claim, at any rate. However, I expect you are no more psychic than I am. Indeed. And no doubt PACT could continue to do good if you do not insist on trying to sacrifice it on the alter of vanity.

    I've got an idea - why don't we open it up to as many biker Wikipedians as possible to suggest an alternative or comparable bike to the R1100GS? Would you like that? Rivercard (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dennis Brown. It is flatly incorrect to state that the ANI was a content dispute - it wasn't - and it was a mistake to close it for that reason. It was a justifiable, provable complaint about a bad faith argument. That is not inconsequential. A background of the content dispute had to be included in the ANI for context. Also, there has been no hostility on my part and you yourself said the worst that I (and, to be fair, also Dennis) could be accused of was being 'snippy'. Noted: I can live with 'snippy'. Importantly, no one (including yourself) has been 'dragged along' into any discussion - you were merely notified as per policy. Any editor who reaches the limit of their attention or tolerance can freely absent themselves from any debate. Similarly, whether I 'bother to reply' is, again, my decision, and no one editor should be attempting to dissuade another from exercising free speech - especially on their own 'talk' page. In fact, that kind of dissuasion is, ironically, dissuaded. This: 'because as far as I can tell, you are both equally in the wrong here' is contradicted by 'I have no idea if the info should be included or not'. Quite. Finally, the point about not caring one way or the other about so-called 'petty' content is one you may personally hold but I think that having a high standard for the inclusion of material is actually beneficial, not detrimental. Rivercard (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Archived for Reference[edit]

Archive for self-reference of deleted 'Talk' page messages and incivility in the deletion message on the Dennis Bratland 'Talk' page. See below for deleted material and deletion message:
Latest revision as of 18:35, 14 April 2012 (edit) (undo)Dennis Bratland (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 486982741 by DPL bot: tl;dr. you got the last word. now go away. (TW))

"BMW R1100GS

Unfortunately, the DRN was closed by TransporterMan 11 hours earlier than the time stated for closure by Hasteur, which must have been very frustrating for you as it stymied your chance to reply. So, re: your requests for proof from other editors, I thought this might help you and provide some much needed clarification: BURDEN and WP:V. Rivercard (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC) −
I'm going to do what I said I was going to do. Finish my research, then restore and expand the section with a mountain of citations. If you then delete it, I will open a formal mediation, which I expect to be closed almost immediately in my favor, not counting the novella-length brief you will no doubt write and nobody will read. But I haven't done anything yet. So why are you here? What do you want? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Manners, dear boy. They don't cost anything. I was 'dropping' off the relevant codes you needed to clarify a point on which you seemed uncertain during the Noticeboard and ANI discussions. I don't expect thanks for that, but neither do I expect hostility. You have posted six times on my own 'talk' page and on no occasion did I demand to know why you were there or what you wanted. The reversion of the deleted material will only itself be reverted if there are grounds to do so - that's how Wikipedia works; there are no special exemptions for anyone. We have also yet to go through Request For Comments WP:RFC and Third Opinion WP:3O and, in the event of a mediation (although, according to Wikipedia policy ‘Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part’), finally Final Arbitration] WP:A/R. (And there's also the request for further information via the Motorcycle Project, as you yourself suggested.) So, there's a long way to go yet before the material can be uncontrovertably reverted back to the page without there being a perfectly justifiable Wikipedia reason for further reversion. But then Jimmy Wales obviously wants all these relevant routes and options available on Wikipedia for a very good reason, so who are we to argue.
Rivercard (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC) −
(ps I'm reading through Ghost Rider and can't find anything relevant yet. Hope you're having better luck.)"

Archive for self-reference deletion of further follow up 'talk' page message:

"Incivility and TW misuse
I certainly don't mind you deleting the communication we had on this 'talk' page regarding the BMW R1100GS, but I do object to the incivilty of your deletion message, which said, 'Now go away' here - please see Civility: 1.Direct rudeness. And also to your misuse of the TW tag, because by no stretch of the imagination was my message vandalism - please see Abuse, which says “You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked.” Let's keep it civil, shall we? Rivercard (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)"

A favor to ask[edit]

User:Dennis Bratland appears to want to move on, and asked me, to ask you, if you could refrain from contributing to his talk page. Obviously, there may be times you need to via templates and such, but I would ask this as a personal favor. I really do think that both of you are good editors in your own right, but you just do not get along with each other well. That's fine, we all have someone we just can't clique with. But in this case, as a personal favor, I would ask you both just try to avoid each other when possible, and keep any discussions on article talk pages when necessary. Let time heal old wounds. You both have a lot to contribute, but only if you aren't spending your time in disputes. Thanks. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Dear, Dennis (Brown).
An very important clarification is needed here: the only reason myself and Dennis Bratland were communicating at all was because of the discussion - messages never strayed outside of that. So there's no need for this or further messages unless another/further discussions materialise that necessitate it. And, please note, the 'talk' page messages were perfectly polite. And, please note, that I did not question the other editor's freedom to post on my own 'talk' page, and which he did with the exactly same frequency. Remember, we're talking about only 6 messages each over two weeks. The only difference is that I was always polite but Dennis Bratland was not - see 'Archived for Reference' material above.
Also, Dennis, there is something about the tenor of your reply to his request on your 'talk' page ("I will drop a note..." date: 21:12, 14 April 2012 - archived) that gives the impression that there may be some truth to his assertion, 'But I can't get the guy off my talk page'. Again, please examine our relevent 'talk' page posts and see that that is no truth to it at all. It is just another false accusation. (I would have appreciated a full reading being given to the 'talk' page comments - feel free to read them.)
The user Dennis Bratland appears to believe in what we might call a 'first strike policy', i.e. the hope that making the first/earliest accusation is enough to make the accusation look legitimate. It isn't enough. In fact, editor Ravenswing has already pointed out here (18:54, 5 April 2012) that D. Bratland's apparent belief in this method can actually lead to WP:BOOMERANG - the accusing editor's own motives/history being examined and questioned.
For example: in recent deletion messages by Dennis Bratland to other editors, he has said this, here
  • 'But you knew that because I just told you, in excruciating detail, and I directed you to the history page so that you could see for yourself. Please don't come around spouting nonsense. I don't have time for this kind of thing.'
  • 'I'm not the only one who's been reverting your ill-conceived actions. I call bullshit. I don't think you're as dense as you appear to be.'
Are those really the kind of messages from an editor on whose behalf you want to intercede by leaving your previous message for me? I'm going to suppose that you only left the message for me here out of courtesy, not because you believed in the request's legitimacy. (A better response would have been for you to ask him why he was asking you to intercede based on false information - because that puts you in an unfair position.)
I think he should know that you and I have had this conversation and that we are both aware of the more accurate nature of the situation, so please by all means let him know. Many thanks.
Rivercard (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:YOU CAN'T PARK THERE! - Back Cover.JPG)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:YOU CAN'T PARK THERE! - Back Cover.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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:No One Left to Lie to - The Values of the Worst Family.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:No One Left to Lie to - The Values of the Worst Family.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hitch-22 paperback cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hitch-22 paperback cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Lucacentric
added a link pointing to Big Beat Records
Lucas Secon
added a link pointing to Big Beat Records

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Rivercard. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lucas Secon, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

  • avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
  • instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. It strikes me as strange when you've turned up and continued the long running slow edit war to include the long discography in this article. Similarly, I can't find the precise image you uploaded anywhere else on the internet and from the OTRS you are evidently in contact with the subject. Please read the notice above carefully. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE,
Thanks for the message. Could I just answer with a bit of background and clear up a couple of assumptions: I came to this page via Michel Gondry's video for Bjork's 'Bacholorette', which in turn led to Gondry's video for 'Lucas With The Lid Off', which is by this producer Lucas Secon. It was not my intention at all to 'continue the long running slow edit war' as I'm not part of that and I didn't even know the page existed then. I did see the banner on the page about the semi-lock, etc, and read that, but I didn't check exact details of the edit history - I just started to add info and refs that I thought improved the page.
I like to think that a referenced discography is a perfectly acceptable addition for any music producer or songwriter's page - and would actually be an expected part of such a page as it speaks to their notability for inclusion. Though I can see now that what has gone on in the past might colour some editors views of any new material - for example, some of the new referenced material was removed en mass by another editor on the assumption, it seems, that this new material was simply a repost of previous information. But actually it wasn't. I messaged that editor with this information too and I presume they took another look at it and then differentiated between the new material and the older stuff.
Re: the photo: I saw it being used on the official website, along with a photographer credit, so I emailed the author to ask for permission from the photographer to use the image. I received a reply with a copy of the image and a message saying that the photographer was okay with sending image permission to Wikipedia. I presume that is where the OTRS comes from. I'd like to think that it would be taken as a positive thing that I went through the correct channels, in line with WP regulations on requesting copyright holder permission for image use. Hope this helps.
Thanks, Rivercard

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucas Secon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cool. 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) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucas Secon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lucas and Cassidy. 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) 10:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucas Secon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lotus and High Maintenance. 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) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:Lucas Secon - Wikipedia image.jpg[edit]

Hello, Rivercard. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Lucas Secon - Wikipedia image.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

  • If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.
  • If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Rivercard. 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)

A page you started (Good and Gone) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Good and Gone, Rivercard!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time to create this article - it's appreciated. Could you please look it over and see if you can address the issues raised in the improvement tags? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Orphaned non-free image File:SBMESSIAHS - Good & Gone.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SBMESSIAHS - Good & Gone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Screaming Blue Messiahs - Good and Gone extended.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screaming Blue Messiahs - Good and Gone extended.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)