Exok objects to the closure of the discussion about whether to split Jeremy Bamber into two articles — one about the murders and one a biography. He has requested that I make a formal proposal to split the articles on the talk page. I'm very sorry to ask this, but it would be appreciated if everyone who commented at the BLPN here could offer their opinion again at Talk:Jeremy_Bamber#Proposal_to_split_this_article_into_a_murders_article_and_a_biography. (Also, for some reason, that link isn't going directly to the subsection, so please scroll up a little to find it.) Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about this. I don't think I did know about the BBC's play. When you say the programme no longer exists, you mean it was lost or destroyed? Pity, if that's the case; I would have loved to try to track down a copy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

Thanks for uploading File:Peppa Bicycles.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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article for 3 days. Please form consensus for the article title and scope on the article talk page. Once consensus is clear on both, use {{editrequest}} to ask for an admin to change it. Until then, don't leave any more messages on 89.100.*'s talk page, and don't start reverting on that article again when the protection expires. You've both used up your allotment of reverts on that article for a long time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Also, the IP's edits weren't vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Can I reiterate this? Do NOT call edits vandalism if they're not. If you are not aware of the "vandalism" means here, read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick and 89.100 – I would encourage both of you to refrain from further contentious discussion on Talk:List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland and allow the RFC to run its course. You both have made your positions clear, and repeatedly badgering each other or other editors with your positions is not productive. I moved the article back to its pre-RFC title and move protected it for 30 days. It is also edit protected. Additionally, I have sought input from the Olympic Wikiproject to resolve the 50 meter, Olympic sized and Olympic standard discussion. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick - of course the Talk page is not off-limits, but the repeated badgering every input that you disagree with (same applies to 89.100) is not productive. Allow the RFC to run its course, let others weigh-in without challenging their every word and see how this plays out. This is a 2-3 item list. It is inconsequential in the scheme of ~4M articles. Don't fall into a trap of contentious discussion, it never solves anything. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you contributed to the Cfr dicussion concerning Category Police brutality in England. If I read you correctly your reasons for maintaining the status quo seem to be a) Keep it because Police brutality exists as a phenomenon and b) Incidents are seen as police brutality, "in the eyes of the wider public" and c) It is a useful category.
My point in making the nomination was that labelling anything, whether by the police or anyone else, as "brutality" does not comply with Wikipedia's policy regarding NPOV. To put an article in that category the editor has to make the value judgement that the article is about an example of police brutality, whilst being neutral in our point of view suggests not labelling incidents in that way.
The point, therefore, is whether or not the label "brutality" is POV or not. If it is then we should change the name.
No one is denying that some people get injured by the police (we are not talking about deaths, they are covered under Category:Deaths in police custody). All we are saying is that when people get injured by the police it is not Wikipedia's policy to label those incidents as "brutality" because that is a subjective POV. Therefore, your three reasons do not address the central issue which is: Is calling it "brutality" POV or not? If it is, then we need to change the name.
In light of this, would you be prepared to review the discussion and your contribution to it? If you choose to reply, please do so on the page where the Cfr discussion is taking place. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 07:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I seem to recall that you commented on this issue before, and it has come up again, unfortunately during the police officer's trial.

• The lead currently begins: "Ian Tomlinson ... was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work ... The trial of PC Simon Harwood, a police officer accused of Tomlinson's manslaughter, opened on 18 June 2012 at Southwark Crown Court, and is expected to last up to five weeks."

• An anon wants to change this to: "Ian Tomlinson ... was an English newspaper vendor who was unlawfully killed on his way home from work ... The trial of PC Simon Harwood, a police officer accused of Tomlinson's manslaughter, opened on ..." etc (my emphasis).

There's a discussion here on the BLP noticeboard in case you have any interest in commenting. All the best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? You are not a sysop, rollbacker, reviewer, or autopatrolled user and you have edited more than Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). Get your permissions now! Adjkasi (discuss me) 10:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the article's talk page which may interest you regarding the wording of the beginning of the lead section. Please feel free to comment there. I won't be watching this page so if you want to leave a comment here please leave a {{talkback}} template on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you just made this edit [1] on the 7 July 2005 London bombings article. I have to say that I do have sympathy for the IP's edit here. I have not seen the programme in question so have no personal opinion on the matter. However whether or not it achieved its objective is clearly a matter of subjective opinion. Even if a signicant number of third party sources could be found which supported that claim, a proper neutral wording would be something like 'it was widely described in the media as having successfully debunked a number of the theories'. At present however we have a bald statement of fact with no third party sources at all. That undermines the credibility of the article, and WP. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beck Plaque.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. Bulwersator (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Falklands Play book.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Love Soup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commute (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) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that he is "widely judged amongst Britain's foremost television dramatists", which you have reinstated in this article, needs substantiating. Can you reference this? I acknowledge that SP has a big reputation, but I don't think it is enough simply to assert it.--Agarpp (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I do not like you deleting cited material from this article, exactly who do you think you are? If you wish to discuss the article's contents then please by all means discuss it in the talk pages however to just delete content because it doesn't suit your own ideology is frankly distasteful. Twobells (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]