User talk:Pop goes the we

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Lilley.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Error: There was no comment detected! Please follow the instructions at Template:AfC comment. This is a good start (I did some formatting fixes), but it must be properly cited. You make a decent attempt further down, citing some awards and whatnot, but because of the lack of indenting/quote boxes it's hard to tell what's quote and what's your personal opinion. Do check out Wikipedia:Quote your sources and Wikipedia:Quotations for how to do so.

Big thing: the huge Morgans quote must be cut down substantially. Even if you say "excerpted from" it can still be a WP:Copyright violation to use so much material. Also, it's not a really useful direct quote since it's a narrative that's clouded by too much "derring do" phrasing, glorification, etc. The article should be facts without drama; if somebody significant has an opinion on Lilley, the fact of their opinion can be cited without endorsing or contradicting it with our personal opinions.

From what I can tell, Lilley is known enough that he merits an article, but the article needs to be clearly sourced to news media or books of military history, etc. You just need to track down the sources and footnote them, and then make sure everything is phrased neutrally and factually, with limited and appropriate quotations from figures whose opinions on Lilley matter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you're adding so many extra copies of the article to the page? Are you deliberately copy-pasting the entirety of it multiple times for some reason? If you take a look at the History tab of your draft, you can see the sheer number of times you pasted in whole new copies of the article. On the far right end of each entry you can see a + or - for the size the page increased or decreased by, and each time it jumps by about 15,000 or so is a time you added another copy of the article to the page, and in at least one case added 29,000 by somehow pasting the whole article twice. Please look at your actual draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Lilley, scrolling all the way to the bottom, and note you have no fewer than four copies of your article on one page, and nine different Submission templates. I'm not trying to give you hassle here, just noting that it makes it very confusing for a reviewer when there's so much material jammed into a page, and it can be tough to figure out which of the many entries on a page you actually want reviewed.

I'm going to take a look and figure out which version is your most recent one, and I'll clean off everything but your current draft and most recent Submitted template. Out of genuine curiousity, do you have the redundant copies because you wanted to keep track of your older drafts, or is some automated action creating the duplicated entries without your intent, or how did this occur? It's not just you, it's not uncommon amongst the AFC review requests, so figuring out how it happens would help me to advise other editors.

Also note, I marked some advice about neutral point of view at a few different points in the article, crossed out some inappropriate material, etc. You've left all that material in for whatever reason; once you see my comment and what to remove, go ahead and remove it and press on cleaning the article.

I have more input about formatting, tone, etc. but for starters let me just do a cleanup, and let me know how all these multiple entries turned up so I can figure out how to help others with the duplication issue. Then we can press on with further cleaning. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, made some suggestions and did a little cleanup. Let me know what you think so far. The best way to keep the conversation in one place is for you to reply on this page, and then come to my page and at the very bottom post the code {{talkback|User talk:Pop goes the we}} as a new section. That will alert me to come here and rejoin the conversation, and that way we have all the discussion on one page together. I hope all this feedback isn't just getting frustrating. I know it's tough to get used to this style of writing and formatting, but you've picked a valid topic, and the article is definitely coming along. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, looking a whole ton better. I left you a few more comment, and also if you click the "History" tab on your draft, you can see the explanations with the changes I made, so those are worth reading too. Check out these "edit summaries" on the History tab, and also a few comments I left within the article, including a really useful auto-formatting tool.

I'm still not quite sure why the article is duplicating itself on the page, is that happening automatically or are you mistakenly copying and pasting a whole new version each time? I'm not upset or anything, just trying to figure out how to help.

One thing we need to take care of though: the image File:Sgt Bob Lilley SAS founder member 1941.jpg you've uploaded is up for deletion since you have not provided copyright information. Basically, since Wikipedia isn't sure it has a legal right to use the photo, they want to delete it. I wouldn't so much worry about it at this exact moment though, as we can always sort out the copyright issue later and get it up with the right copyright. Just don't be surprised if it gets deleted for failing to provide copyright information, don't take it personally or anything, and we'll figure out the details of that later down the road.

Oh, also, you don't need to email me through Wikipedia to get my attention back to your Talk page, just go to my Talk page itself and post the "talkback" message. Generally speaking it's best not to email people directly unless it's something secret/sensitive, or you just aren't getting a response on their Talk page. I check my Talk pretty frequently, so if you post there I'll see it.

Getting better and better, just check out my comments and we'll move on to further improvements. Are you feeling better about the process and coding now? Not getting too frustrated I hope? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. This article will almost assuredly be approved at some point, and could on technical grounds be approved now, but I wanted to sort out a few issues, including the proper licensing label for the photograph, before we launch, just to give it due diligence.

I understand the image of Lilley is a family photo, and I'm not quite sure how to label that for licensing purposes. I posted that as a question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media#Proper_copyright_tag_for_old_family_photos_of_Notable_people.3F. I suggest you drop by there to see what kind of answers we get. Again, if the image gets deleted while we're puzzling this out, don't fret it, we can just re-upload once we get a clear answer. Also, the issue of confirming that you are indeed a Lilley descendant (if that does turn out to be part of the solution) would only be directly to Wikimedia management via private email, so please don't post any personal information (phone#, personal email) in the discussion, or argue the case of your being related since we're perfectly fine taking you at your word for the purpose of discussion. It's just a matter of ensuring we have the labeling right so that proper legal procedure is followed. Sorry that the image issue takes a little squinting, but we're just trying to ensure we respect all legal rights.

I'll get back with you in a few days regarding expanding the article in order to give Lilley the due coverage. I would indeed like to include some of the specific details of his adventures, but we just have to do it without plagiarising an author, and also while maintaining a neutral tone. No hurries at all, we can fine tune this up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Error: There was no comment detected! Please follow the instructions at Template:AfC comment. As there is interest in the press on Bob Lilley my feeling is lets get this up and then fine tune.

Thank you for uploading File:Sgt Bob Lilley SAS founder member 1941.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

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) 18:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. NtheP (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop goes the we, I have noted your frequent additions of uncited or "citation pending" material to several different articles including Orde Wingate and Long Range Desert Group (there are others) with mounting alarm. You are consuming a considerable amount of time and effort from other editors (not just myself), and this is beginning to amount to disruptive editing. When you were very new we all tried hard not to "bite the newbie", but you are becoming aware of the responsibilities of Wikipedia editors, and therefore you must realize that your behaviour is causing difficulties. Could you please take this as a friendly piece of advice to look up references before you write, and then supply references in full as a matter of habit? That would be very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken OK thanks will do in future. I am still researching my subject and consulting subject matter experts. Some of this information is still considered restricted.Pop goes the we (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Turns out there are a whole ton of media mentions of this man. Here's some interesting reading material:

• Sara Malm (2012-12-05). "SAS hero Ernest Thomas Lilley single-handedly fought his way out of German base in middle of desert | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
• 11:37AM GMT 05 Dec 2012 (2012-12-05). "SAS soldier's daring Second World War escape from German camp". Telegraph. Retrieved 2012-12-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• "BBC News - SAS sale: RSM Bob Lilley's medals sell for £78,000". Bbc.co.uk. 2012-12-13. Retrieved 2012-12-18.

 Comment: There is a lot of media attention on this man. Pop goes the we (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bob Lilley SAS soldier article has been supported by the following groups:- {{talkheader}} {{WikiProject Articles for creation |class=start |ts=20121228031055 |reviewer=SarahStierch}}{{WikiProject Biography |class=Start |listas=Lilley, Bob |living=No |military-work-group=y |military-priority=}}

Well, "approved for publication" isn't exactly a Wikipedia classification: I believe you mean that it passed Articles for Creation. That is the judgement of a single editor, who may like all of us make the occasional mistake, which can be challenged via Wikipedia's usual deletion procedures - Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion, and Articles for Deletion. The fact that some editors support an article does not prove it is notable; AfD is the forum where such things are debated daily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you I do not now careless whether the article is kept or not since those who are in the know already know and those who need to know can find the information in other places. I do not intend to continue my work in Wikipedia any longer. Since there are hundreds of articles about insignificants writing about themselves and there is a lots of trash in Wikipedia written by people about themselves which has been approved like Ikechi Anya who is hardly someone notable in football etc. etc. If anything Bob Lilley SAS would merit mention more then many already in Wikipedia.Pop goes the we (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have first hand experience on the topics I have edited based on nature of my work and material as a subject matter expert. My citations are pending based on authorization and release of material that is of a restricted nature.Pop goes the we (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

LRDG Sudan Defence Force and the Gideon Defence Force involvement

Elements of the Sudan Defence Force were involved in the LRDG because of their knowledge of Arabic to be able to communicate with the Arab and Berber tribesmen. Their involvement was post 1941 after Orde Wingate relieved of his duties and the Gideon Force was disbanded.Pop goes the we (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the we (talk • contribs)

1) Oddly enough, I believe you. However, it would still be far better to do things the normal way, viz., to wait until you have whatever you need and only then to add the materials. That way, you cause no ripples except of pleasurable surprise at your well-informed and properly supported additions.

2) You have caused disturbances around several articles recently, prompting firm responses from several experienced editors. Were you to continue in that manner you would undoubtedly be blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my accepted article on Bob Lilley (SAS)which included the recent declassification of MOST SECRET material is vindictive.Pop goes the we (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it just didn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. If you do in fact have full references for it, I have no doubt the article will be considered notable. The community does its level best to assess every article objectively, and on the whole it succeeds admirably. There is always scope for trying again, and if a genuine injustice has been committed there are appeal procedures. It is always best to keep a cool head and to do good encyclopedic work, whether of editing or of review and debate. It is extremely unwise to level accusations such as of vindictiveness against other editors, see the policy of No Personal Attacks. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not very well informed you need to do a Google search on Bob Lilley SAS. There is hundreds of Wikpedia entries of people who are totally unknown to anyone delete those first.

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for google searches, the onus is on the editor making additions to provide sources. Personally I'd like to see a well-sourced article on Lilley. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can write it yourself.

To be honest with you I do not now careless whether the article is kept or not since those who are in the know already know and those who need to know can find the information in other places. I do not intend to continue my work in Wikipedia any longer. Since there are hundreds of articles about insignificants writing about themselves and there is a lots of trash in Wikipedia written by people about themselves which has been approved like Ikechi Anya who is hardly someone notable in football etc. etc. If anything Bob Lilley SAS would merit mention more then many already in Wikipedia.Pop goes the we (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Many thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bye! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Makecat. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Bob Lilley (soldier), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Makecat 11:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Jim Sweeney/Awards with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Makecat 11:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Jim Sweeney/Awards with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Makecat 11:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop goes the we (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob Lilley (soldier) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Lilley (soldier) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I just want to mention that you shouldn't edit other users' userpage. In terms of the article, I am not sure whether it meets the notability guideline. You can express your opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Lilley (soldier) freely. Thank you. --Makecat 11:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Crown Prince Mohammed of Libya.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

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 (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Senussi Royal Crest.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]