User talk:Guineveretoo

Welcome!

Hello, Guineveretoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONS and UKSA

according to this http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/data/independence/thestatisticsact.asp, the UKSA (not the ONS) is the NMGD. ninety:one 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FDA a trade union?

{{helpme}}

Someone called haldraper is incorrectly changing all the pages relating to the trade union called FDA, which was, until today, on here as "FDA (trade union)". S/he has also changed the page relating to Jonathan Baume, who is the General Secretary of same. I have undone some of the edits, but am no longer able to do so, and don't know what else I can do.

Hi. You need to talk to them. Discuss it, ask why they did it. Try to come to a consensus. If that fails, follow the dispute policy.

Don't keep undoing edits, as it will lead to an edit war. Discuss the issues on the articles discussion page ("talk page").

Good luck with it; if you need more help, please ask! Chzz ► 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution {{helpme}}

I have tried that, but I don't actually know how to "talk" to them, even if it was worth the effort. For example, Haldraper insists that FDA is not a trade union, and reverts one of the articles to "First Division Association", but it changed its name to "FDA" in 2001, and is a registered trade union and has been for decades.

There does not seem much point in discussing this with him/her, when their starting position was that the senior civil servants are not "workers", so the FDA could not be called a trade union! S/he said something about FDA's membership of the TUC being an "anomaly". It is clear to me that this is political vandalism, and that talkingn to them is a waste of time.

I guess I have to go for a dispute? But I am not really sure how. I feel I am at a stage beyond the first one, but don't want to get it wrong....Guineveretoo (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried talking on the article's talk page or user's talk page? I don't see how talking to them would be a waste of time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict, but similar advice, I think)

OK - please bear with me. First of all, please go to the discussion page for the article - the "Talk page" - which is Talk:First Division Association. Create a new section, give it a title, and explain there why you disagree with the name change, and why. Please be brief, to the point, and use a reference if possible.

Then go to the users talk page User_talk:Runcorn, and leave them a note saying "I have started a discussion in [[Talk:First Division Association]], and I'd be grateful for your input" - or something like that.

Let's see how that goes; remember that there is no deadline.

Thanks for your cooperation, I'll do everything I can to help. Chzz : Chat 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is simply an error - there is no dispute with Runcorn, who is, in fact, a banned member, I note!

I will, however, take your advice, and see if I can get haldraper to restate his position as to why he does not accept that the FDA is a trade union. Guineveretoo (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guineveretoo, I see you're having problems with my not regarding the FDA as a trade union. I'll try and explain more fully. How do we define a trade union? I would say that it is an association of workers binding together to protect their interests. The key word here is workers. Are senior civil servants workers in their departments or bosses? I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than the latter. The fact that it calls itself a trade union and is affiliated to the TUC is really neither here nor there if it doesn't conform to the generally agreed definition of what a trade union is. To give an (unlikely) example, say the IoD registered itself as a trade union and affiliated to the TUC would you say 'OK it is one' or say 'that's not a union, that's a bosses organisation'. I think the position with the FDA is the same. The point is that self-definition as something cannot be accepted when the facts point to the opposite. Haldraper (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, meant to mention, despite legal name being 'FDA' calling page that leads people to US Food and Drug Administration with a link to disambiguation page so easiest to keep original and popular name. Haldraper (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper, thank you for responding and explaining. I have a few points to make, as follows: 1) whether you like it or not, the FDA is legally defined as a trade union 2) its members are not only senior civil servants - in fact, the majority of members are not senior civil servants 3) senior civil servants are employees and, as such, are legally and morally defined as "workers", and are entitled to organise themselves into a trade union 4) the union changed its name to the FDA in 2001. It makes no sense to call it something which is wrong, and the previous disambiguation page worked fine, including a link from "First Division Association", in case anyone still got the name wrong. 5) You seem to have a political and personal grouse against the FDA, which is not appropriate nor relevant to editing on Wikipedia Guineveretoo (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guineveretoo, I have no personal or political 'grouse' against FDA. I have no objection to senior civil servants organising themselves but what results is not a trade union. My definition of the word 'worker' and hence 'trade union' meaning an association of workers is a sociological one based on people's actual function in the workplace rather than a legal or moral one. Haldraper (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, and Giuneveretoo's comment on my talk.

Indeed, I made a mistake re. User_talk:Runcorn; I was looking at the wrong diff; I should have said User talk:Haldraper.

Let's try to keep the discussion in the right place. This page is not the place for discussion about the name; the right place is Talk:First Division Association. I see the comment by User talk:Haldraper, which gives a reasoned argument. If Guineveretoo has a comment to make on the subject, they should make their point there, under the comment from Haldraper, indented. Please make your point as briefly as possible, giving a policy reason and references as appropriate.

I hope that others will then give there opinion, and that we can reach a consensus. Failing that, we'll proceed per WP:DISPUTE.

If you wish to respond to the above, ie to discuss the correct approach etc, then please do so here, on this page, and let me know with a quick note on my talk page - you could use the talkback template for that purpose.

I hope I can help you to resolve the issue, best, Chzz ► 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I haven't worked out how to indent, so I am not able to format this correctly. I have, as already suggested, put a comment on the Talk section of the page which used to be called "FDA (trade union)" and which was changed by Haldraper to "First Division Association". I suppose I can only wait for Haldraper to respond to that? It is simply wrong to continue to call it First Division Association, because that is not the correct name.

It is also odd to decide that a trade union is not a trade union because it represents senior civil servants. As I said above, it doesn't only represent senior civil servants, in fact, a minority of its members are senior civil servants. PCS also have senior civil servants in membership, as does Prospect. Should those two no longer be called trade unions, either?

There is a legal definition of a trade union, and the FDA fulfills that legal definition, regardless of whether or not it is a member of the TUC. I honestly don't know what else to say. Haldraper is making a mockery of this place by behaving in this way Guineveretoo (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guineveretoo, you want to place the entire question of whether an organisation is a bona fide trade union in the hands of a state official rather than decide on the basis of who its members actually are. It would be helpful if you would outline your definition of the word 'worker', not a legal or 'moral' one (not sure how you can be 'morally' a worker) but yours. I repeat, if the IoD registered as a trade union, would you automatically accept it as such, propose it be admitted into the TUC etc. because its members draw a salary irrespective of their actual function in the workplace, i.e. bosses opposed to workers? Haldraper (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re your question as to why I think you work for FDA: your determination to describe it as a trade union led me to think you are either an official or an employee of FDA so I googled 'Guineveretoo' which produced a Myspace page of someone with the same username who works for a trade union. If this isn't you or it is but you don't work for FDA, I apologise. Haldraper (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message in my talk

Hello again

You've posted a message about FDA in my talk - as I described in my previous message, above, the right place to discuss it is the articles talk page, Talk:First Division Association.

Personally, I have no knowledge, or interest, in the area.

As I explained above, please put suggestions for changing the article on the discussion page - make them short, factual, and supported by references.

Please re-read my previous message.

Thanks,

Chzz ► 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I missed that point, will post in Talk:First Division Association from now on. Haldraper (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your patience, Chzz, and my apologies for not understanding the protocol of wikipedia.Guineveretoo (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great; I've seen your comment. It would be good if you could provide references, if possible. You can put in links to websites like this; [www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] - that will come out looking like this; [www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia].

Now we've started a discussion. Next, other people can read the arguments put forward, and add their thoughts. After discussing it, we'll hopefully come to a consensus on the right wording. Honestly, the process does work :-) What I will now do is, I'll try to get a few other people to contribute to the discussion, and give their opinion. Often it can be difficult when there are just two people with opposing opinions, but often the solution is to ask others for their ideas.

Of course, you might not get the "right" answer - there's plenty of things on Wikipedia that I disagree with; however, we have to accept the opinion of the consensus of people.

Lets hope we can work this thing out amicably; please drop me a note if there are any developments etc, as I probably won't be 'watching' it - I'm working on about a million other things at the same time.

Best of luck, Chzz ► 00:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've asked for some more input in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour#First_Division_Association. Keepo an eye on the article talk page, I'm hoping for some more input. Chzz ► 00:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

Hi.

If you start a new line with a colon symbol ":", the line is indented, like this;

This is an indented line.

If you start a line with two colons, it is indented further, like this;

This is indented with two colons, "::", at the beginning.

And so on.

I hope that this is clear, and helps you.

Thanks, Chzz ► 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it appears to work so, yes, it is helpful :) Thanks Guineveretoo (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Guineveretoo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

David Lea, Baron Lea of Crondall - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest policy

As an employee of FDA, have you read WP:COI? Haldraper (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the conflict of interest page. Not sure how or why it is relevant to my amendment to the Baroness Symons page. It simply didn't read properly following your change, and the union never was officially the First Division Association, and is named further down the page, and I made a suggestion which I thought would improve it. Guineveretoo (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted a notice about your edits in breach of WP:COI at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Guineveretoo and FDA. Haldraper (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. There is no conflict of interest inherent in me seeking to reinstate someone else's accurate statement about Liz Symons being a former trade union official, because that is what she was, and it is not controversial. Guineveretoo (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

breach of 3RR

I have now posted a notice about your breach of the three revert rule at Edit warring#Guineveretoo and Elizabeth Symons. Haldraper (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Hopefully someone will come and have a look and seek to understand what on earth you are up to on this page. It seems like vandalism to me. Guineveretoo (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely think that, you should report me at WP:AIV. Haldraper (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been quite enough reporting going on! I will leave that to others. Guineveretoo (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as an admission that you have nothing with which to back up your charge of vandalism. Haldraper (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I had made a "charge of vandalism", I would have done so following procedures. I have not made any such charge. I will leave others to reach their own conclusions as to your motives. I am now walking away from this site, and hope that someone sensible will come along and resolve this dispute. Guineveretoo (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jonathan Baume, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ACAS (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) 08:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Update HCSA logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Update HCSA logo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I filled in the form with all the information I could - I don't know what happened to it! --Guineveretoo (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TUC. 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) 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Update HCSA logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Update HCSA logo.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. --B-bot (talk) 03:02, 28 October 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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Guineveretoo. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Guineveretoo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Guineveretoo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]