User talk:Uboater

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Uboater! Thank you for your contributions. I am MJ94 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MJ94 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Capt.Richard Williams

A tag has been placed on Capt.Richard Williams, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Capt.Richard Williams

A tag has been placed on Capt.Richard Williams, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of national museums, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nuttah (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Armouries Museum. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. PamD 10:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited List of museums in West Yorkshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clarence Dock (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) 10:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from U-8047 Replica Submarine. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_by_User:Uboater_at_Talk:U-8047_Replica_Submarine.23Connection_with_trust

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you unequivocally withdraw any threat of legal action, you may be unblocked by me or any other admin. But it is unacceptable on the project to attempt to intimidate other users with threats of legal action. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ofending text 3 times and TransporterMan keeps replacing it. Pehaphs it is for you to stop him and others republishing the ofending text then I shal withdraw any action.Uboater (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it does not work that way. There are ways to go about handling disputes, but trying to intimidate via threatening legal action is not one of them. Issuing legal threats is one of the fastest ways to get yourself blocked around here. It's also one of the fastest to get unblocked, if you retract the threat and agree to not make any more. The block is indefinite, in that it has no set end date. This does not mean that it is infinite.

Intimidating other users is simply unacceptable. Wikipedia works by consensus. Allowing one user to intimidate another undermines the foundations of that. WP:NLT has the details of this policy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TexasAndroid, I find it unbielevable that you concider the thret of civil legal action Intimidation, your comments are not writen without predujice and are mearly helping my cace. As I have told you and TransporterMan quite clearly I find the addede refrence ofencive and it is writen in contempt of the British Laws of Subjudicy. I will however retract the threat of Libel action, however, If the ofending contant is not removed I will instruct my solicitor to apply to the court, in the curently active procedings, to make an order for you to remove it at it is clearly in breach of Subjudicy under british law.Uboater (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but saying that you retract, but then saying that, if you still do not get your way you still plan to pursue legal action, iss not really a withdrawal. We cannot stop you from taking action, but leaving the possibility of such hanging out openly like that continues to have you in violation of the "No Legal Threat" policy. You are basically saying that, unless you get your way, there will be legal consequences. And that is a continuing threat of legal action, and a continuing attempt to intimidate other users.

You need to withdraw it, and make no further mention of it. If at a further date you decide to pursue legal action, that is your choice. But you cannot leave the threat of such action hanging around. You cannot say you withdraw it, and in the next sentence renew it.

On a related note, Wikipedia is in the US, and is thus not generally subject to UK laws. This has come up before with the issue of UK superinjunctions, and that they do not generally apply to Wikipedia. So an order of a British court is likely to have little effect on Wikipedia.

That all said, if you unequivocally withdraw the threat, and do not continue to say things like "If X is not done, I will have my lawyer do Y", then you can be unblocked. And I can point you in the direction of various possible ways to go about getting assistance in the matter. I cannot promise you the outcome you want. The other user may very well be in the right as far as WP policy goes. (I have not examined the specific issue deeply at this time) But at the least I can point you in directions to try to get your desired end that are within the WP system. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must be so good to feel above the law, once again you are replying not "without predujice", and your comments can be used against you. I'm sure that most judges would not think very highly about them. Well Block me all you want, I dont care. I am the person refaired to in the artical, I was arested, but have not been charged with any offence. The arest was in connection with a company that I worked for some seven years ago and has no connection with the trust, other that the fact that I was on board the boat when aresdted. It is police policy in uk to serch the property where the arest took place. Our Trust collects money to help educate children and is suffering because of the libelus comments in the artical. I havent got the time or patience to study your WP syatem, Simply remove the ofending comments and I will withdraw my legal challange.Uboater (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to study the system since it's quite simple: withdraw the threat if you wish to be unblocked. This is not negotiable. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi. I can understand your being disturbed by this material being added to the article, and I can understand you don't want to damage the trust, but Wikipedia simply does not work the way you seem to want. You will not be unblocked under your condition that the material is removed first, as that would simply be giving in to intimidation by legal threat. Also, I've had a look at the quoted sources, and the article is only reproducing what has already been published in the Express and in other UK newspapers and is openly available on the web for all to see - so I honestly don't see what legal prohibition there can actually be (though I'm certainly not a legal expert). There might possibly be grounds for removing the material, but that's a matter for discussion on the Talk page and can really only be addressed once you make an unqualified withdrawal of your legal threat -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, if you can find additional sources correcting the sources cited so far or providing balance to these sources, we would be most interested in revising the article. Rklawton (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rklawton|talk for talking some sence. I formally withdraw my thret to bring legal action against Wikipedia. The origional story apeared in The Yorkshire Evening Post on 27/01/2012 http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/customs-raid-on-leeds-u-boat-exclusive-1-4185634 All other storys origionated from this. On 28/01/2012 The same newspaper printed a follow up story, confirming that the alegations dated back 7 years and had no connection with the trust, other than the fact that I was on board when arested. Unfortunatly this was only put in print and their is no on line copy to site.

I would be quite happy with the ofending article remaining as long as some ballance is put with it, ie:

Additional media attention was drawn to the boat on January 26th 2012, when Capt. Williams was arrested on board the boat and his personal possessions were searched. This arest was in connection with an alleged £1 million VAT fraud, dating back 7 years, involving false sales of disability equipment. The only connection with U-8047 TRUST, which is just 10 months old, is that Capt. Williams was on board the submarine museum at the time of his arestUboater (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ok. I'm going to accept that level of retraction. I will unblock you shortly after I post this message. Keep in mind that you have a lot of eyes on you here now, and any return to talk about possible future legal actions on your part are likely to just get you blocked again. New eyes can be good, though. Hopefully some of them can help find a peaceable solution to this at the subject article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, glad we have found a civil solution to this matter.Uboater (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (talk) Once again this psmD has edeitid this page, removing conent that you and others have aproved. Is is her that caused all the trouble last week and I feel that she is being maliciously and vindictive towards the trust, if she removes anything else their wont be anthing left.Uboater (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good story and properly sourced, but in her view, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot get the citations corect on the page, pehaphs TexasAndroid could help?

Editing

Please take the trouble to learn (eg by looking at WP:HELP and, if that fails, asking at the WP:Help desk) how to add tags etc in Wikipedia, rather than adding your own "[NO CITE]" formulation. If you make an edit, and use "Preview", and see that it does not have the same effect as in other articles you have seen, then Cancel the edit rather than leaving non-standard comments in an encyclopedia article. Your addition of these tags, after your comments on my talk page could be taken to be WP:POINTish behaviour: "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", as your previous editing history has not shown any interest in the quality of other articles than U-8047 Replica Submarine.

I have reverted your edits and added the standard tag to indicate a section lacking references in each case. PamD 15:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering he owns the Submarine, I think his point in editing it is justified. He's going to have more knowledge of it than anyone on here, you included. Russ Jericho (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the British Prime Minister's office has more knowledge about the British Prime Minister than we do, but that doesn't mean we let the British Prime Minister's office decide what should go in our article about David Cameron. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want factual information on Mr. Cameron, you'd go to Mr. Cameron for it. My point is this, anything found on here should always come from the "horse's mouth", surely? You don't want information from the monkey, you'd want it from the organ grinder. You're not going to get a more factual source on this article from anyone other than [[User:Uboater|Uboater]. As long as the article is unbiased, that should be it. Russ Jericho (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We would not go to Cameron for it in Wikipedia, as it would be original research forbidden by the verifiability policy. As that policy says, "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources..." (emphasis added). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if these so-called "published sources" are libellous and/or misinformed? I think you misunderstand what I wrote previously; any sources Wikipedia obtain should always come directly or indirectly from the topic of discussion? Published or otherwise? Russ Jericho (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly Russ, these mupets don not always follow the truth, they pick and chose who's web sites are ok to use as citations. The Royal Armouries, (my personal bug bare) is a absolute load of tosh written by morons who think that just because they can spell are better the others. It is cited by some photo's, which are out of date and ref's from theit website, which is ok because they are a large museum with the queen as patron. Sadly their head man has recently been suspended on allegations of deception and fraud, but PamD dosent try and add it to their page like she does to mine.Uboater (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Jericho: Though the answer is considerably more complicated than this, the short answer is yes. As it also says in the verifiability policy, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia..." The sentence you have reinserted is not verifiable in the source which you added, please read the policy and then remove it. Frankly, the better thing would be to remove the preceding bit about Cyril Howarth since its inclusion really violates WP:UNDUE to begin with and removing it would avoid the necessity of having to explain it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an "h" in my surname. This has been corrected. No verified source required... Russ Jericho (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright query

If the file File:Captain Williams.jpeg is your "own work", then (a) why is it attributed on your user page as "© Bruce Adams/Daily Mail", and (b) did you take it with a self-timer or something, as it's remarkably clear and composed for a self-portrait? PamD 09:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it's my own work. If I have somwhere then it was in mistake, the photo was published in the dayly mail some time ago and Bruce Adams sent me coppies and gave me permition to use them.Uboater (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself when you uploaded the image on 5 November 2011. PamD 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Captain Williams.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Captain Williams.jpeg, 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. PamD 11:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you are not happy delete it in fact Delete the whole Fucking thing. You the most (Personal attack removed) I have Ever come Across. In Fact I'll Delete the Fucking things MYSELF save the the trouble.Uboater (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the comment by Uboater above and removed a personal attack. Arcandam (talk) 13:25, 11 June 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. PamD 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive_language_from_User:Uboater PamD 13:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as U-8047 Submarine Museum. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. 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. Arcandam (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This type of editing is entirely unacceptable. If it is ever repeated your blocks will lengthen progressively. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After your last unblock request I've taken the liberty of extending your block indefinitely, for incivility and legal threats. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was beaten to it by Jac16888, but the reason remains. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Captain Williams at the Periscope.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Captain Williams at the Periscope.jpeg, 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. Psychonaut (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of U-8047 Submarine Museum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article U-8047 Submarine Museum 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/U-8047 Submarine Museum 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. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related attacks

Just to keep the record in one place, also see the 12 June 2012 edits here. Identifiable as Uboater by the content and edit summary of this edit, along with the topics of the attack, and the spelling. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

I'm glad that you find wikipedia better than other sites. Let me know if you need any help.

Salma Vian (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Uboater, I have sent email to you via your website email address. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, I am trying to restore this page for uboater, who has assured me that he will not be using wikpedia again, over a dispute with some of the editors. Please can you help?Submarinor (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (Laurel Howarth 19:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'restore this page'. It's not really possible to do anything with this page, which belongs to a blocked user. What were you hoping for? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uboater, my husband went a bit off the rails earlier this week and deleted his user page which link's in to the page about our Submarine Museum. I am trying to restore the page, after ha has assured me that he will not edit anything again.

I have blocked the Submarinor account - Getting someone else to register to try to do what you are blocked from doing amounts to block evasion. You have been told what to do if you wish to be unblocked - see WP:BASC for details of how to appeal the block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for "a dispute with some of the editors", you know it is rather more than that - it was repeated nasty attacks and threats issued against both individual editors and against Wikipedia (including attacks and vandalism on my Talk page even as recently as today - with this). You have been told you will not get your way by bullying and threatening people. If you want to act like a civilized person in civilized company, then follow the instructions you have been given - that is the only possible way you might get back to editing your user page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/U-8047 TRUST concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/U-8047 TRUST, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission U-8047 TRUST

Hello Uboater. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled U-8047 TRUST.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/U-8047 TRUST}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Psychonaut (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of U-8047 Submarine Museum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article U-8047 Submarine Museum 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/U-8047 Submarine Museum (2nd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]