User talk:Mholland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Welcome to my talk page
Thank you |
 Archives |
|
/Archive 1 (2005 – 2006) |
[edit] Zico
mholland I need your help. I have uploaded a Image named: Super_Lab.jpg (Screenshot from Science Centre virtual tour, London Metropolitan University official website). But I don't know the licence of that image. Please help to figure out *Is this the image of my work? or *Will I insert non commercial and educational purpose licence? Please reply my talk page or here.Ashiqur Rahman 87 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there. Image:Super Lab.jpg is a screenshot from a copyrighted video/slideshow, and is therefore not your own work. For the image to remain, it must be labelled as such, and you must add a detailed fair use rationale, following the instructions at WP:FURG. Please also consider whether the use of this image really is fair use - if it is possible for you to take a photo of the same thing, and release it under a free licence, that would be preferable to using a copyrighted image from somewhere else. Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria only allow us to use copyrighted material when no other satisfactory alternative is available (text description, or a freely-licensed image).
- I have added an appropriate copyright tag. You should supply a good rationale on the same page, or, if you find that the image doesn't meet the WP:NFCC policy, you can request its deletion by adding {{Db-author}} to the image desription page. — mholland (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reputation mangement
You appear to be a reputation management worker. Are you commercially employed to "correct" true but unflattering material about Universities and other institutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not. On balance, I tend to find that I remove more unsupported positive material than I do unsupported negative material. I've not edited the article Kingston University since August, by the way. I merely gave an opinion on the talk page, to kick-start the discussion there. — mholland (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: comments in removed version regarding Diana Winstanley are referenced in the following links referred to on why-diana.org:
http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2032396 http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12326-f0.cfm http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200surreyheadlines/tm_objectid=17609187&method=full&siteid=50101&headline=pressure-of-work-drove-mother-of-two-to-kill-herself-name_page.html http://business.kingston.ac.uk/diana.pdf http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/search/display.var.901541.0.pressure_of_work_leads_lecturer_to_kill_herself.php http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,1876675,00.html
Court document supporting comments regarding criminal charges against Donald Beaton is referenced at: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/beatonsummons.jpg
Numerous other documents provided on www.sirpeterscott.com to support factual reporting in Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Queen Mary
First of all, I neither want an edit war nor do I want to attack you. I am a German law student and I have never been affiliated with QMUL in any way, so you can assume that I have pretty much a neutral point of view and you can believe me, Queen Mary does have a strong international reputation; particularty its law school is considered to be one of the UK's finest. Now, I'm going to replace your edit with this quote:
It is a research university, with over 80% of research staff working in departments where research is of international or national excellence (RAE 2001). It has a strong international reputation, with over 20 per cent of students coming from over 100 countries.
and I'm going to source it with this link:
I conjure you to just let it be as it is then. Kind regards 88.66.59.159 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Quotes (the above sentence is an exact quote) should go in quotation marks when you add them to articles in running text. I can believe you that QM has an "international reputation" (whatever that means), but I would argue that it's too vague a
sentencephrase to be included except as an opinion, attributed to a reliable source. May I ask what http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/ is, and why it's more reliable than the Independent, which you replaced with it? I would also urge you to consider registering an account for your contributions - there are several benefits. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)- Well, I changed it from It... to The College..., so that it is no longer an exact quote, and I would argue that it is not meant to be a quote, rather a fact written by the editor (me) which is affirmed by the citation given. I have no problem to add the Independent as a further source affirming this fact. A strong international reputation is not something vague, but something a university either has or not. In the case of Queen Mary, it is something that is clearly existent. Besides the afformentioned sources, it is also approved by a survey of recruiters of international law firms created by a renowned German law journal, which puts QMUL among the most frequently recommended graduate law programs (unfortunately I only have it on paper). The fact that a quarter of its student body comes from abroad alone affirms this fact as well. So how many sources does it need to get your kind allowance? I'm going to copy this conversation and post it on the article's talk page, as other people may want to give a comment, so we can go on there. 88.66.18.61 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Zico
Dear Mholland,
Though it is personal question but I like to ask you, are you working in London Metropolitan University, UK? You can reply to my mail: zico8788@yahoo.com if do not like to answer here
Ashiqur Rahman 87 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's quite all right. I am in no way connected with London Metropolitan University. — mholland (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Damn, and I thought trolls were only on Livejournal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittykittyuniversity (talk • contribs) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nottingham University Business School
Hey, I know you did alot of the merging fro University of Nottingham articles and I've been doing a fair bit myself with some recent articles. I wanted to ask your opinion on Nottingham University Business School, I am not sure it's actually notable, plus it's not exactly neutral sounding. The only other division to have it's own wiki article is the Medical School I believe. Previously I merged the vet school article into Campuses of the University of Nottingham but that was only two lines long. I am really not sure if Nottingham University Business School would fit in there. What do you think? Million_Moments (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would merge that article into University of Nottingham, because it's an academic department. If the building is especially notable in its own right, it could be mentioned on the campuses page. — mholland (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen Joseph Studio
Hi. You removed the gallery from Stephen Joseph Studio citing the Manual of Style. I'm unaware of anywhere in the MoS that says don't use galleries within articles. Please could you point me to the appropriate section? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies - the MoS might not be explicit in discouraging galleries. I was probably thinking of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries ("only include a limited number of relevant photos accompanying article text"). If the article is as short as Stephen Joseph Studio, four photos of the same building from different angles is a lot. I think you did the right thing in adding a link to Commons instead. — mholland (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Institute of Cancer Research
Please can you tell me what is the copyrighted material that you believe I have used in my expansion of your original text? My intention is simply to make the Wikipedia content reflect the way we are intending to present The Institute to the world now... (I work there!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssmh (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Institute of Cancer Research (2)
Sorry, mholland - I forgot to mention that several of the so-called copyrighted words you've removed are in fact MY words! And I magnanimously have given myself permission to reproduce them here! I recognise that you are trying, for whatever reason, to protect the integrity of Wikipedia; but in this case I feel you have rather overstepped the mark and drifted into an attempt to take out factual information that both I and my colleagues here at The Institute would rather like to be better known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssmh (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chichester Cathedral
Hi Mholland!
Just a quick message to remind you that Chichester Cathedral has indeed given me permission to copy a few things from their website, so I'm just dropping off a message to tell you I AM NOT copyrighting material. I agree with Mssmh, that you have overstepped the mark.
END OF STORY!!!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwal (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. There are a couple of related issues:
- "Permission" for you to reproduce material on Wikipedia isn't sufficient for the material to form part of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a free content work, and all content must be licensed in accordance with the GFDL. Chichester Cathedral must license the writing for general use: this means that anyone can edit, modify and redistribute the work in accordance with the GFDL. If the Cathedral wishes to license its material, the simplest way is for the original author to declare that text so licensed, and to follow the instructions on the face of the GFDL itself.
- Even if the text is released under license, I see a few problems with it being copied and pasted verbatim into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while the pages are excellent source material, I wouldn't agree that a biography of the current Assistant Organist forms an appropriate part of an encyclopedic article on a cathedral.
- I have replaced the text with a few shorter paragraphs, which reference the Cathedral website as sources: this also solves the copyright issue. I hope that this is acceptable. — mholland (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] N'cle University
thank you for restoring the Newcastle page. Admitunit (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. — mholland (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] hallam
sorry about the editing some times my tomfoolery gets out of hand, but i have found something to keep my self out of trouble, so i shall stop editing the said page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtpeppers007 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Conflicting Oxford Student Numbers?
I noticed that the data you provided for the University of Oxford student totals conflicts with the information the university gives here.
- It does. Neither set of data is "more accurate", but both are based on the university's own information. Discrepancies usually arise because HESA reports every individual student, whereas University-supplied data usually uses a "Full-time equivalent" number. Because HESA uses the same method to calculate numbers at all UK Universities, it provides a good figure for comparing them. University figures often use different metrics and are less useful for this purpose. For this reason, I support the use of HESA stats across the board. — mholland (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Left comment
Hi, I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Student numbers at UK universities. Have a great day! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. — mholland (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Surrey University arms.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Surrey University arms.png. 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cambridge student numbers
In case you missed it, someone recently editing the student numbers at Cambridge, but didn't change the reference tags. I'd appreciate it if you had a quick look. Bluap (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the citation to match the document being referenced. There is a discussion at WT:UNI about whether these FTE figures are more appropriate for infobox use than the current figures. Thanks for flagging it up. — mholland (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Need some help and information PLEASE
Bold textI am doing report on value of Wikipedia for college class--please give me your personal feed back on value you find for yourelf and for general public. Do you daily go on Wikipedia? What knowledge of the middle ages do you have? please any and all information greatly appreciated home email is slwiltjmj@comcast.net thank you, mom5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.98.186 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] University of Nottingham
Mholland, on Thursday this week (2008 June 12), I will edit the whole University of Nottingham article in an attempt to have it elevated to A class status. I agree with your review remarks on February 2008 and I also have some concerns. Check the site the next day (Friday) and leave comments Omnis7 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC).
