User talk:Bleddynefans

Philately WikiProject

Your edits to Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine prompt me to tell you about the Philately WikiProject which you could join if you are philatelically knowledgeable and interested. Thanks for your input. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks for helping out with the Palestine article. Would be glad to talk to you more about why I think the overview (Israel and Palestine) article is useful, given the complex history and postal authorities for the area. Thanks. Feel free to reply to my Talk page. HG | Talk 21:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see you joined up, so welcome to the Philately WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PNA postal and postage

Hi again. Thanks for adding more info to the PNA article. Hopefully I'll work more myself on this set of articles within the month. Be well, HG | Talk 13:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are willing and interested, you can put in an email address (under "my preferences") so that other editors can contact you that way. (You can set up an anonymous gmail or other forwarding account for this purpose.) Let me know if you decide to do so, ok? Take care, HG | Talk 14:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done Bleddynefans (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli POs

That was an interesting edit on List of postal services abroad, classifying Israeli POs in Palestine as POs abroad. I am not so sure many Israelis would agree with that! ;)> ww2censor (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether some Israelis agree or not: post offices controlled by Zahal or Israel Post in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Golan, and Sinai are just that (as it says in the intro of that page): "occupying military powers to establish postal services in the occupied country." I don't think any reasonable mind can object to that. Let's see whether a discussion opens....Bleddynefans (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Just to spare you some trouble in the future, when editing disambiguation pages (such as Grass (disambiguation)), be sure to follow the manual of style guide. Full links should be visible, and pipes should be avoided. See MOS:DAB. +mt 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. It's much appreciated.Bleddynefans (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor item

Greetings. In the Postal History article, I noticed this: "All postal facilities had the status of relay stations, and letters received their postmarks only at the Beirut post office. Markings from Djebel Lubnan have also been discovered, and are believed to have been issued by a relay station at Staura (Lebanon)." I added emphasis on "only" because it seems to be incorrect, since the following sentence shows that another office also used postmarks. But perhaps I'm missing something? thanks, be well, HG | Talk 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the word

There is a discussion about getting more people involved in Philately on Wikipedia. Join the discussion and share your thoughts here. ww2censor (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff sections, Refs & sources, LOPOITBMOP

I need to ask you why you separated the sources and references into separate sections in both List of postal rates in the British Mandate of Palestine‎ and List of post offices in the British Mandate of Palestine‎ when this is the better way to associate the references with their own sources. Personally I prefer the combination of the two related items in one section, rather than the disassociated method of having two separated section heads. BTW, good to see you made some small edits for clarity. Did you also want to make a short summary paragraph on the main page? If, so please add it.

BTW, I an going to section off the Ottoman post offices and rates also, but would like your input as to the naming we might use. List of Ottoman post offices in Palestine and List of Ottoman postal rates in Palestine or List of post offices during the Ottoman rule in Palestine and List of postal rates during the Ottoman rule in Palestine? Thanks (I post in one place to keep a discussion together, so am watching this page for a while). ww2censor (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice additional text. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have to add a few references; soon, if time allows. Bleddynefans (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already look great. BTW, what are your thoughts about the previous post on the names of the other post office and rates lists? ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Didn't realize I hadn't answered yet....

Separating Sources & References: I just follow general practice on PHOP and other pages; to me this way it looks much neater; just MHO. On the two spinoff pages it wouldn't make much difference, to be honest, on the main PHOP both lists are so long that I strongly prefer the current separation there.
Spinoff names: List of Ottoman post offices in Palestine and List of Ottoman postal rates in Palestine are fine with me; List of post offices during the Ottoman rule in Palestine would include foreign POs, and it's too long...
PS: For List of post offices in the British Mandate of Palestine I'd acutally prefer List of post offices of the British Mandate of Palestine or List of post offices during the British Mandate of Palestine. Bleddynefans (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman post offices in Palestine and List of Ottoman postal rates in Palestine are done and may need a review to see if I missed any references or sources. The main article might still need a short summary paragraph that I hope you will provide. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some edits on the three pages concerned today. Result: List of Ottoman post offices in Palestine has somehow lost its pure list-character. Maybe I moved to much info??? Bleddynefans (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of prose now in the article it might more appropriately be renamed as Ottoman post offices in Palestine. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Hello there. I was slightly confused at this edit as it references a date that has not yet passed. Could you clarify that? Thank-you. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to confuse the date a UK chart gets published (Sunday) and the date that chart is actually dated (the Saturday after publication). This has been UK tradition since 1960. So last Sunday's Top 40 is officially "The Official UK Singles Chart for the week ending 30 August 2008". Have a look here: [1]. Bleddynefans (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of the Palestinian Authority

Stop changing the capital of the Paletstinian Authority to Jerusalem. Jerusalem isn't the capital since it's not under Palestinian authority or sovereignty, not de facto or de jure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fipplet (talk • contribs) 10:48, 1 September 2008

I tell you: stop vandalising that page. There's a discussion now underway, any serious attempt to clarify that disputed section is welcome.

PS: you claim that Israel has de jure sovereignty over East Jerusalem?Bleddynefans (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica UK chart references

It is unnessesary to reference every single song with the same citation. All it needs is one citation at the top of the UK section, just like it is for every other chart. There's no need to give that chart special attention. MiTfan3 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're problem is this: the source you reinstated at the top of the listing does not list any chart place outside the Top 40, so you will not find a chart position for three of the last four singles (those that failed to make the UK Top 40).

By deleting my references you have should have also deleted those chart positions itself, because they are now unreferenced. Bleddynefans (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious?

You think that my claim, which isnt bullshit, it can be confirmed with this: Clones (song), is spurios? Its essential and important to know that Clones was actually the first number one, and whatever that other one is called is the first PUBLIC number one. also, the only reason i put that reference there was because there is no official chart that says it because it wasnt released to the public until June 23, when the number one came out from public downloads. i explained that in my claim. --J miester25 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this please: Clones (song)#Claims about #1 in the Download chart. It remains un unvalidated claim, unless you reference your sources. Bleddynefans (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If i put that in there myself, i wouldve referenced it. but since there was no reference on that claim, i couldnt find a vaulable source. i also think its important, so i put a website that kind of went along with what i said on the #1 chart. i agree it that it sucked as a reference. --J miester25 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChartsPlus

Hello! I was checking Santigold discography and I noticed you referenced her UK chart positions with a physical copy of the ChartsPlus magazine back in August, 2009. I'm trying to promote Ashley Tisdale discography to FA but I'm having a problem with the reference I'm using for UK chart: Chart-Stats.com. Since its reliability has not been confirmed yet, I'm looking for alternate references. I did not find any other reliable digital archive so I decided to look for physical references, such as ChartsPlus and Music Week. The main problem is that I've no idea about where I can find the exact informations about the issues for each charted song - issue number, page, etc. So I'm here asking you if you can help me. Do you still remember where have you find this informations? Do you have those physical copies? I'm really needing help. Thanks a lot, waiting for your reply. Decodet (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try these very reliable sources:

There are other sites, like achart or everyhit.com or polyhex.com, but they don't all cover full Top 200 charts.

ChartsPlus have an index to their issues here: [5]. The Singles Top 200 is covered on pages 1-4, the albums 5-8. You can get a sample copy from the website, and individual copies are for purchase there.

Tisdale Ashley Kiss The Girl Walt Disney/EMI -- ; USWD10629558 ; CATCO919489 29.01.2007 137
Tisdale Ashley He Said She Said Warner Bros. -- ; USWB10606350 ; CD ann(3.12.07) 15.10.2007 198
Tisdale & Lucas Grabeel Ashley I Want It All Walt Disney/EMI -- ; USWD10834839 20.10.2008 95
Tisdale Ashley It's Alright, It's OK Warner Bros. -- ; USWB10900799 ; USWB10901314 ; CATCO148541770 25.05.2009 107

info above are release (not chart dates; add 12 days for taht) and ENTRY positions, not peaks. Hope that helps. Bleddynefans (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those was really helpful, thanks! ChartsPlus is now being used as the UK refenrece on the discography. Decodet (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The refs to ChartsPlus should be from no. 371 Liverpool: UKChartPlus, only before that is Milton Keynes: IQ Ware Ltd correct. Bleddynefans (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I didn't know that, I just corrected the refs, thanks! Decodet (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Singles and Albums

Hi. I declined your CSD tag on Scottish Singles and Albums since it seems like a plausible search term for the actual chart. Let me know if you disagree. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Band of Horses

Thanks a lot for the chart positions of the 1st 2 album. Where do you get the info? I'm a bit of a chart nerd so would be very interested to have a look at the source. Hope you don't mind but I changed the date formats back to match the format of other dates in the article. Let me know about the charts stuff though, thanks again Iangurteen (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier comment, thanks for adding the citation. Are these extended (top 200) UK charts available for free anywhere on the web? Iangurteen (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, free on the web is only the Top 100 at OCC, beyond that the Top 200 is exclusive to ChartsPlus. There are annual summaries at zobbel, upto last year only.Bleddynefans (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UKChartsPlus

Hi there! This might be kinda random, but I noticed you added chart peaks below 100 to the Glee Cast discography article about a year ago, from ChartsPlus. I was wondering: do you still have access to this publication? If so, there are several peaks I would like to ask you about. Thanks in advance! :) Yves (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject

I see you're a member of WikiProject Wales and have contributed to Welsh articles. There's a new project, Llwybrau Byw!|Living Paths! under development which you might be able to contribute to. Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path and the many and various activities and attractions. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in. Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! Cymrodor (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2013 (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) 13:09, 23 November 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bleddynefans. 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]

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

Replaceable non-free use File:Fateh napalmshalom.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fateh napalmshalom.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]