User talk:Cordless Larry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Assyrians in the UK (again)

I am not interested in playing a game, whereby I constantly explain to you that there are very few if any links to link the Assyrians. I took photographs of the Chaldean Priest and the Church, and I am an Assyrian of Britain, why would I make this up? Give it some time, stop obsessing about this small article; let it grow out of its stubby length and then perhaps when they're notable enough they might have more citations.

I have seen your edits and you have been careless enough to remove referenced information. If you want to keep playing this remove and add game, fine. Gabr-el 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand your position, but a lack of sources is no excuse for not referencing an article. Please read WP:Verifiability. If you cannot find a reliable source, then the material should not be there. Please provide evidence for your accusation that I "have been careless enough to remove referenced information". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Does an image count as a reliable source? Gabr-el 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it potentially does. A photo of a person does not necessarily prove who they are though, unless there is something in the photo to identify them. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can see that the photos I added are of a Church and of a Priest. It doesn't say who exactly they are. I am still looking. Gabr-el 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess they might be worthwhile in and of themselves, but I don't think they're any good as sources. How does a photo support the statement about the current priest? Nothing about the photo confirms that statement. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you can accept that there is a priest, or you can accept that there isn't one. Assume good faith is a wiki rule too you know. And Burden of Proof is not the same thing as being a total skeptic either. Gabr-el 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It says material likely to be challenged. I am not appreciating this obsessive one man crusade of yours against this article, like I said earlier, my patience has worn thin. There are far more preposterous things on Wikipedia that are unreferenced that could do with some of your zealous attention. Gabr-el 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not obsessed with the one article. I have also removed unsourced material from plenty of other articles. I realise that there are many unsourced articles on WIkipedia, but I obviously can't fix them all. Since ethnic group articles are one of my main interests, I am concentrating on getting those referenced for now. I am assuming good faith in your editing, but good faith does not extend to unreferenced article content. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC

Hello, Cordless Larry. Eugene2x (talk · contribs) files WP:Requests for comment/User conduct on Badagnani (talk · contribs). Since you've known him for his AfD conduct, your input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani would appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

advice

When you come across a page with uncited content, the appropriate thing to do is to look for sources. If you cannot find them, then you can nominate the page for deletion. If you are sure it won't be contested, use Prod--otherwise, AfD.DGG (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What articles are you referring to? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Political Quarterly

Larry - very belated thanks for undeleting the Political Quarterly entry. Apologies for the length of time that has elapsed, but the fact is that I only recently discovered the article had been restored, and then I completely failed to find how to send you a message on Wikipedia. (I have to say that I've been in the business for 25 years and can figure out most stuff, but Wikipedia's interface has me beat - why doesn't it just have comment boxes like every other Web 2 site?)

But I digress, thanks for doing an excellent edit on the PQ article and adding significant facts that I'd omitted to keep the size down. Please thank Geo Swan too, as it was his message that alerted me to the restoration. As for my PC Pro article, I don't think it was *too* harsh, and you know as well as I that ALL publicity is good publicity!

All the best Dick Pountain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afonka Bida (talk • contribs) 13:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was amazed that it was deleted too, so I thought it only right to get it restored. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked a question in a recent {{rfa}} framed around his article. I wonder how useful it would be to ask every {{rfa}} candidate this question? Do you have the URL to Pountain's original contact from the NYRB?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume that this is the NYRB article, from a quick Google search. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Peruvians in the UK

Hi, I have left a comment on the talk page of Peruvians in the United Kingdom which I have attempted to expand. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Peruvians in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians in Britian

Thank you for the tips. But as you may of may not be aware the information posted is correct. I an unaware if you have any actual knowledge on the subject or are just removing it because you believe it to be incorrect. If so I would suggest that do some research on the topic before making deconstructive reverts as you did, which is not in the spirit of this project. There are other ways to question the legitimatacy of the section for example by post a citation request until the source can be found. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN the burden is on the editor who adds material to supply references. This is especially important when you are trying to shore up an article while it is under consideration for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but always try adding a {Fact} tag to avoid users questioning your removal of the text. Also try to provide time for the user to find the "direct" source required for the sourcing. PMK1 (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As you will have noticed, I have already tagged the offending section. I expect that you will provide a source presently. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Thank you and merry christmas. PMK1 (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect a sourced tag for every single sentence made? Or every single statistic? I added as many sources as i deemed necessary. I am sure that the article as a whole meets WP:V. PMK1 (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there might have been some confusion. My comment on your talk page was about the Macedonian Australians article, not Macedonians in Britain. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know. i just chose not to start a new section. I assumed that you knew what I was responding to, seeing as you were the first to ask. PMK1 (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see how you can claim that it meets WP:VERIFY. Take the Werribee or Perth sections, for instance. They hardly have any sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Migration

Hey, I'm sorry for leaving you all of sudden, I kinda got bored. Anyway, I've seen what you did and I'm not agreeing with it. The problem with relying on the UK census alone is that, they haven't seem to have figured out how to define most of the ethnicities living and would probably exclude certain ethnic groups. The country-of-origin thing is fine but the problem there is that it excludes British Tamils (not from a single country) and Montserratians (Montserrat is not a country). I suggest let's keep it inclusive and do a ethnicity+country thing ad just wait for the 2011 census.--23prootie (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You might not agree with the census categorisation but it is a published, reliable source. What is the source for the claim you are making? It sounds very much like original research to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the census. I'm just trying to categorize the leftovers.--23prootie (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And if you're doing that based on your own schema, it's original research and therefore against Wikipedia policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom.That's where I based my edits.--23prootie (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

New Template

Hi Cordless Larry. I was wondering if you had an opportunity yet to see this new template? It's of that ethnicity-defining type that characterized the edits of our old friend Stevvvv4444, and which were repeatedly deleted. Looks like we may have yet another alternate account on our hands. Let me know what you think. Middayexpress (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it that you're suggesting that Stevvvv4444 and 23prootie might be the same person? As you can see from the previous sockpuppet investigation, it's hard to prove it so I'd prefer not to offer a view on that. There is that strange combination of editing articles about ethnicity and pop music again though. Anyway, as for the template, I was happier with the recent "Migration to the UK from X continent" templates than with the old ones which tried to link ethnicity to country of origin. However, this one does seem problematic, particularly the way it uses the term Black British (and links to African American and Afro-Caribbean - i.e. people who have not migrated to the UK from Africa). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'm now almost 100 per cent certain that 23prootie isn't a sockpuppet since they seem to have edited at exactly the same time as Stevvvv4444 (or rather one of Stevvvv4444's IP addresses). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the problem and I agree with you on this. The template indeed shouldn't attempt to link ethnicity to country of origin, and it also shouldn't include groups who haven't actually migrated from Africa. Good edit. Middayexpress (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's good. I've tried to explain this on the template's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cordless Larry. Please have a look at the template's talk page. It seems our friend is having difficulty understanding the logic behind our edits, and things are getting rather heated. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got it on my watchlist. You're doing a good job of making our case. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

UDA

You must have the wrong IP address. I never edited that page. 212.2.172.178 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The message I left on your talk page is very old now. It was perhaps someone else using the same IP address. See Special:Contributions/212.2.172.178. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rangers SF

Thanks for your message. I was looking around the SF talk pages - I do believe it was your message that I had looked at and then started creating it. I think it is better to create seperate team pages and not have them included in the football teams article itself as it clutters it up. I have already noticed that some people do not like that their football team has SF related info on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadblocker (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

German American Politicians -- Category Deletion Discussion now at ...

[1] --Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

glavaš

Hi

The career of Branimir Glavaš has many episodes. His conviction (which is still not validated) does not make the essence of his biography and it is not what makes him notable. So ,that kind of introduction is misleading. Even Hitler has better introduction. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

His conviction isn't everything but it is a significant event and should therefore be mentioned in the lead as part of a larger summary. I don't see how the comparison with Hitler is relevant. Also, what do you mean by the conviction not being validated? Who needs to validate it? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

excuse me for not beeing specific... I do not know proper legal terms .His conviction needs to be verified by the 2nd degree court. Then He might be put in jail. The leading paragraph about Hitler does not mention his "tribute" for Holocaust and other things. Glavaü is convicted for the death of couple people. ("commanders responsibility").His role before the conviction is much more famous.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hitler article's introduction includes the following: "His forces committed numerous atrocities during the war, including the systematic killing of as many as 17 million civilians including the genocide of an estimated six million Jews, known as the Holocaust". In any case though, like I said, I don't think it's a relevant comparison. The point is that Glavaš being convicted to ten years in prison is a major event in his life and therefore should be included in the introduction of his article, along with other relevant events from earlier in his life. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

On the verification point, I presume that you mean that he has the right of appeal to a higher court. That may be so, but that doesn't change the fact that he's been found guilty and sentenced. An appeal court can overturn a judgement, but it doesn't verify it as such. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "major" event. The big one-YES-but not crucial for his biography. He is first of army general and politician. Yes, he can still appeal on this verdict.... that is still pending.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand how you can say that it isn't one of the major events in his life, but I will take this up on the article's talk page to achieve consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Links

I posted uncategorised links for the article in my discussion page. Also added some into article external links section. Kasaalan (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. If I get some time, I'll put some work in on the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentines in UK

I disagree with one of the comments you made, I believe this rivalry and the images to accompany it are certainly relevant to the article. With such strong patriotism to Argentina, it really is great that there haven't been any large scale riots or other such events amongst Argentines in the UK. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a photo of a meeting between Diego Maradona and the band Queen has anything to do with Argentine immigrants in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: UK Swedish

Hello Cordless Larry, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of UK Swedish - a page you tagged - because: redirect created as result of AFD; use WP:RFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry, I didn't realise that redirects created as result of AfD couldn't be speedily deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish cats

Thanks for you edit to my talk page. I wondered why it was putting my page in those cats. I note you add a leading colon. Beganlocal (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you just want to link to a category on a talk page and not put the page in the category, you need to use a colon. The same goes for templates. Glad I could be of help. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Was "Jewish cats" meant to be a pun? Sounds like the kind of category that some editors would like to see on Wikipedia! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good! No, it was just shorthand for categories, but I like your thinking. I was trying to get some silly categories such as Category:Jewish astronauts deleted (per WP:OC#CATGRS and given that there is no encyclopaedic intersection between Judiasm and being an astronaut - there is no such thing as a Jewish way to explore space). I don't see the need for these categories and labelling, but anything Jewish is likely to be a sensitive issue and the editors won't let me proceed based on them not liking how I approach the matter - quite a convenient and boring way to avoid discussing the merits of a proposal - just attack the proposer! Anyway, thanks for the tip. Beganlocal (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with you on that. I sometimes think that some editors want to turn Wikipedia into some kind of giant ethnicity directory. Ethnicity is sometimes relevant, but often it's not. Category:Jewish astronauts seems a perfect example of the latter. Given the history of repression (and worse) based on categorisations of ethnicity in the "real world", this obsession with doing so on Wikipedia bothers me. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for helping with the reference marks. I am new here, but there were so many reference marks in one small sentence, that I was not able to solve this problem myself. Thanks again. Best wishes. --Zara-arush (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could be of assistance. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gateway Protection Programme

On July 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gateway Protection Programme, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article. Well done. Would you be willing for it to go for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment? Perhaps images aside, it appears to meet the criteria. Arguably it might qualify as a short FA? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I would certainly be willing to put it forward for consideration as a GA (though why reassessment? - it's not been a GA before). I'll wait for more comments from the peer review first though, and act on those made so far when I get the chance. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My doh. Have it assessed for GA by all means, before being reassessed. I noticed, after my message to you, that you'd put it up for peer review ... good luck with that. I'd offer to help, but I think I'm on a number of other missions right now. Whatever, it is a very well written & well referenced article: kudos to you & many more, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun British

I wasn't aware of this article until you pointed it out, which shows it is definitely isolated. It is a seizeable community and saying this, there is definitely room for improvement and expansion, but whether or not it is worth it is the question. Much of this information could be included in the article Afghans in the United Kingdom. There aren't seperate articles from British Indian for the Punjabi, Gujarati, Parsi etc communities in the UK. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think a merge with Afghans in the United Kingdom might be our best bet, particularly since that article isn't all that comprehensive anyway. It seems a bit premature to have a Pashtun British article when the main Afghans one is still fairly sketchy. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That said, not all of the Pashtuns in the UK are likely to have roots in Afghanistan since the Pashtuns are a cross-border ethnic group with significant numbers in Pakistan too. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Inclusion within the respective articles is enough, as Pashutns are only slightly mentioned in the smaller Pashtun British article. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think that the article actually titled Afghans in Britain should be redirected to Afghans in the United Kingdom, as the UK is mentioned throughout, the figures are for the UK and the UK is the official term for the nation, with Britain simply being an island of the UK. I think an administrator would need to do it though, since the new would be article is already a redirect to Afghans in Britain. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a better title. I've tried to move it before but since Afghans in the United Kingdom already exists as a redirect, it needs to be proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I have now done. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations in lead of Chew Stoke

Thanks for your edits to Chew Stoke. You removed the citations in the lead - I only added these because on 2 August another editor added "citation needed" tags to the population figure & the info re commuting - do you think these will be added again?— Rod ^talk 10:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's referenced in the main body of the text so I don't see why it is necessary to have them in the introduction too. That said, if it's challenged again then maybe we need a reference per WP:CITELEAD. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed deletion

Dear Cordless Larry,

You have nominated Quality Videos of ISAF Afghanistan Operations with Embedded Reporters - Listed by Member Country, an article that I created, for deletion.

Apparently, you do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

You have made the following statement to justify deletion:

"This article has been created solely as a list of external links to videos, contrary to WP:NOTLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)"

I believe you above statement is incorrect. The site I created is not "solely" a list of external links. It contains many references to other wikipedia sites. See discussion below.

Below is the text from WP:NOTLINK:

"Wikipedia is not a ... repository of links ... Policy shortcuts: WP:NOTLINK ... Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines. ..."

The site I created is NOT a "Mere collections of external links". In addition to containing external links the site references many related wikipedia sites. This interelation of the external links along with the wikipedia content create product that is very useful and unique. This type of site could not be created without being part of wikipedia.

If a decision is made to delete my site then I believe that the WP:NOTLINK policy is being too narrowly interpreted and I would like to know the procedure for changing the WP:NOTLINK policy to make it more pragmatic and reasonable.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is essentially a collection of links to videos. The article title makes that clear. These links (or a single link to the ISAF YouTube channel) would be more appropriate in the main International Security Assistance Force article. If you want to make a case for a change in that policy, you should raise it at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. If you want to contest the deletion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quality Videos of ISAF Afghanistan Operations with Embedded Reporters - Listed by Member Country. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Badoer

Sorry - I trashed some refs, didn't I? My apologies. 4u1e (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but no worries, it's sorted now. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Luca Badoer

Yes, regardless of what the BBC do, Wikipedia uses people's names as they are spelt in their home countries, including all diacritics - thus we have Marc Gené, Kimi Räikkönen, Sébastien Buemi. Why the BBC would choose to just leave them out, I have no idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if we're directly quoting the BBC though? I always thought that quotes should be copied exactly as they appear, even if they include spelling errors (hence the use of sic). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of compounding the BBC's error, and that's what it is - they've effectively spelled the guy's name wrong, changing the entire pronunciation. I'd say it was hair-splitting to include the mistake with a "sic", and the logical thing to do is just include the link to the article as it is correctly displayed. Other editors will inevitably change it anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't really suggesting we use sic, just using that as an example of how we tend to replicate spelling errors. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians in the United Kingdom

You're right. It was 14,000 and I changed it to 9-10,000 (according to the source for England - there was no source pointing 14,000 Ethnic Macedonians in UK). I think we should leave only the official data (1,285) and move the other as a note, explaining that this is only for England and that it's according to the Macedonian MFA. --StanProg (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it said 12,000 in the first place, but I take your point. Do you think the source is reliable? I know that it's published by a government department, but sometimes England is incorrectly used as a synonym for the UK, which means it's hard to tell whether the author meant to refer to England only or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The source 9-10,000 is the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia", so it's official statement of the ministry. Personally I don't think it's reliable, having in mind that the same MFA gives information about 750,000 Ethic Macedonians in Bulgaria, when according to the 2001 census they are 5,071. That's why I offered adding it as a not, quoting the source and the numbers. --StanProg (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I was aware of where is was from, but was just suspicious that they have given a figure for England rather than the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Migration to the UK by continent

Agreed, the continent-level articles seem like overkill --- no need to be reproducing the same data table and list of links in multiple locations. An extra "continent" column could be added to the table in Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom if others feel there's a real need for it.

The recent profusion of templates also worries me; there must be about 20 different presentations, like:

1. the national subdivisions of supra-national ethnic groups, like {{British Arab}}
2. subdivisions of continents, like {{East Asians in the UK}}
3. the continent as a whole, like {{AsiansinUK}}
4. {{UK census ethnic groups}}

At minimum, I think groups #1 and #2 are also introducing an unnecessary layer of complexity here. cab (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll suggest a merge to Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom when I get time then. I agree on the templates too. Groups 3 and 4 are perfectly sufficient. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger suggested here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Embedded reporters in Afghanistan

Thanks for the links you left on my discussion page. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How close do you think the current version of my article on ISAF embedded reporters at User:Mfstelmach/ISAF Afghanistan and related operations with embedded professional reporters is to being ready for the main Wikipedia? I believe I have made some progress, however, I am finding the article to be more time consuming and difficult than I expected. Also, I am going to be very busy for a while and I probably won't have much time to work on Wikipedia. Operation Khanjar seems to be the most complete. Operation Khanjar has no links to YouTube and includes some sources in addition to ISAF. Do you feel this version of the article (if completed) might be notable? What are the three most important improvements needed to this version of the article. I look forward to hearing your response. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I see it there are still several problems with it. The main one is that you need to find some sources that establish that the topic is notable. As far as I can see, all of the references so far are to actual pieces of embedded journalism. What you need are sources about embedded journalism in Afghanistan. Secondly, I still feel that it reads like a directory of links. As one user has commented on the original article's deletion discussion: "The test is to remove all the external links. Do we still have a viable article after that?". I still think that the answer is no as it stands at the moment. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When I get a chance I will work on adding more sources about embedded journalism in Afghanistan. Thanks for the feedback. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Badoer

Yes, sector times are sometimes not the easiest thing to provide sources for. During the race, one can follow the live timing screens and it's clear who is recording the fastest sector times, but this information is lost after the race and no link can be provided to it. Badoer actually recorded the fastest first sector four laps in succession, but I can't find any link to it now. The Japanese site is the only one I can find to show fastest sector times, and is therefore invaluable! Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC) And in the first reference, they refer to the times "going purple", which is what happens on the timing screens when a driver records the fastest sector of the race thus far - the times are recorded in purple as opposed to the usual green or white. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd looked for references to support the claim before I removed it but couldn't find any. I'm glad you knew of one. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Patrick Watts

Good catch - it looks like the original author on Flickr misidentified the driver, and I didn't check it carefully enough. Sorry about the deprecated link on my talk page; I forgot to update it when my username was changed earlier this year.--Midgrid(talk) 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Handel

Damn, that was quick haha! I was just adding the very same reference myself, but it resulted in an edit conflict. Good work. Hayden120 (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw some activity on my watchlist, looked at the Handel article and thought, why have the unsourced text about people considering him to be British when we already have a perfectly good reference in the latter article that establishes that he became a British citizen? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation MAR LEWE

You placed the following tag on the Operation MAR LEWE article:

Please explain your notability concerns in detail on the talk page of Operation MAR LEWE. Operation MAR LEWE is a NATO ISAF operation in which British Army soldiers were killed. It seems strange to question notability of this NATO operation. Maybe you used the notability tag by accident. Is there another tag you meant to use? Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's not notable, just that it needs sources that establish that notability. Perhaps you could add some references to newspaper or other articles on the operation? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The only reliable sources I have been able to find on this operation are the NATO organization itself and some of the governments that are part of NATO. All of the other sources seems to be less reliable blogs or websites that reference these reliable government sources. If you can find a reliable secondary source on Operation MAR LEWE (e.g. newspaper, etc) please feel free to add it the article yourself. Or let me know what the reliable secondary source is and I will try to incorporate it into the article. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources guideline is detailed at WP:RS. Note also that the notability guidelines require that the sources establishing notability are independent of the subject so I don't think the MOD ones satisfy that. I'm surprised that there wasn't any newspaper coverage if soldiers died in the operation. When I get time, I'll look for some articles on Lexis Nexis. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Month

All I can say is Doh! lol, have to fix them all, other people can help too you know!! P.S Archive your talk page, it's getting far too long. Govvy (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to help. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, kind of looks arty in my watchlist!! Govvy (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I also archived my talk page on your advice. I figured it was about time. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

publisher in citations.

I was trying to get some consistency with how to display the publisher of internet articles, for the BBC, I use just BBC Sport, I thought when you put just Tottenham Hotspur down, it doesn't really tell you if it is from an official source or not, so stating it's Tottenham Hotspur Official Website makes more sense to me and for the those that don't really know. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just thinking about this again now and I'm still not sure I agree. Surely "Tottenham Hotspur F.C." would make it perfectly clear that the publisher is, well, Tottenham Hotspur F.C. If we have to have the "official website", it should at least be in lower case. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Salvadorans in the United Kingdom

I noticed the template that you placed at the top of the article, and I am willing to comply. As for the single source goes, the content of that source comes from many other places, would citing these individual sources eliminate the current problem? Thanks Soccafanatic7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Which source is that? The one for the census population figure? Surely that only comes from one original source - i.e. the census? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Population figures

I am just writing to you concerning the changes you have made to well probably all of the UK ethnic group articles. I do not understand that after months of discussion about which figures should be included you have simply gone and removed them after the 2008 country of birth data was released. This is basically the same as the 2001 census, but more u to date. Yes, this is good that we now have more recent reliable estimates, but they STILL do not include British born ethnic minorities belonging to those groups. In some cases British-born individuals outnumber their foreign-born descendants, and I know with the Nigerian British article, a figure of 800,000 to 3 million may be a bit high but it certainly needs to be included in the infobox so people get an idea about the true numbers. You seemed to be happy with including such figures in the infobox before were they have included British-born descendants so why have things changed now that the number of immigrants from the certain countries have changed??? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that while you claim that these figures include British-born descendents, the actual sources don't say this. They're ambiguous about how the group is defined, but you're adding them as if they definitely include descendents. You may also want to see this discussion, where there seems to be agreement that the ONS figures are to be preferred. I have no problem including these estimates in the text, but I don't think they should be included in the infoboxes when we're not actually sure how they have defined the group in question. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See also here, where it was suggested that only official estimates should go in the infobox. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is understandable, but I think it would be best to clearly state in the infobox that it doesn't include descendants, also how they stand I think they look much more bland than usual. I have just made a change to the Nigerian British infobox, I believe it now looks much better and is more understandable. There is nothing inaccurate, and I just wish the confusion surrounding population figures can be sorted out one day. I have read somewhere that the ONS were considering having tick boxes for groups such as Nigerian and Somali that now only come under Black British. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the format. It looks better like that. Two minor points though. Firstly, "Nigerian born" should have a hypen in it ("Nigerian-born") when used as an adjective. And secondly, I don't know if the descendents heading is appropriate in this case. Claiming that something is unknown is always dodgy since it's hard to prove a negative. For all we know, a figure exists somewhere, it's just that we haven't found it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest the current revision of Ghanaians in the United Kingdom as a good model format for the statistics in the infobox? It would be great if you could help me add that to all of the UK immigrant group articles, based on the figures at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom. It's going to take a while for me to do it on my own! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is along the lines of what I intended to do, it is layed out presented neatly and gives a clearer image of the varying figures. There is one thing however on the Ghanaians in the UK article, I am confused to why you have used the Ghanaians registered with High Commission figure when you didn't want to use the Foreign Office figures for the population of the Nigerian British community. Surely both sources are credible and reliable? Also, i will get round to the infoboxes as soon as possible. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question. As you'll see from the history, I took it out and then added it again. I think perhaps we should wait for the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard to conclude before deciding on the rule. Although I would also point out the Nigerians estimate is very vague because it gives such a big range, and is also slightly less credible since it comes from the UK Foreign Office, whose remit as a department doesn't include anything to do with Nigerians in the UK, whereas the Ghana High Commission obviously does have a remit regarding Ghanaians in the UK, if that makes sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shells

Because you recently commented on the discussion at Talk:Written Roads, you may be interested in commenting at the AfD of its parent article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

North West England population figures

They are from the 2008 source with country of birth statistics for the UK as a whole. i have referenced the article now and chnaged 2007 to 2008. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for letting me know. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Census tracts

Hi. You added a "globalize" template to Census tract, indicating that it needs to be expanded beyond its current focus on the U.S. and Canada. Do you know of other countries that define and use the term "census tract"? I don't (but I'm no expert on this), and I suspect that the article lead section might need to be revised to specify that this is a term used in the U.S. and Canada. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, they're used in the UK too. According to this article abstract, "In many countries, the census tract (CT) is the smallest territorial unit for which population data are available". My understanding is that while it may be explicitly employed by some national statistical offices, it's also used as a more generic term. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. --Orlady (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It obviously requires a lot more work but I thought I'd make a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Personally I don't think they are worth bothering with, and I would object to someone converting from one style to another (either way), but I have no objections if someone likes to use them and converts one of mine if that is the usual style on an article page. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I respect your opinion. Thanks for the explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kusher

It didn't really explain who he is, what he generally covers and what his own centric may be. Hes not actually an academic as such, but rather a university professor. I've found a reference from University of Southampton, giving a bit of context. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you made a subsequent edit and made a further comment on your talk page. The OED defines an academic as "A member of a college or university; a collegian. Now spec. a senior member of a university; a member of the academic staff of a university or college; also loosely, an academically-gifted person", so I take a professor to be an academic. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Its best that we are specific, so as not to mislead the reader. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just be clear. Kushner holds to Freudo-Marxian, psychoanalytic theory (specifically in relation Britain, he has wrote on this via the archives of an organisation called Mass-Observation).[2] Kushner's claim is that British peoples popular opposition to mass asylum, is that "British people today are immoral". This is very similar to Frankfurt School theories of Theodore Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. Its ultraleftist and obviously not some sort of non-partisan position. While I agree that MigrationWatch UK seems to be a small c-conservative organisation, Tony Kushner is on the other side of the spectrum. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that Kushner is non-partisan - I don't think that anyone is - but the MigrationWatch UK article never presented his views as neutral. You can't label him as "ultraleftist" without sourcing that claim. Your own reading of his work as left-wing doesn't cut it. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you deleted Croats in the UK (the article)

Then you delete British Serbs. -- Imbris (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, I nominated it for deletion. There's a difference. The decision to delete it was taken by consensus. As it happens, I did nominate British Serbs for deletion some time ago - see here - but it was decided not to delete it because there are reliable sources establishing the community's notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And you are more than welcome to nominate it for deletion again yourself. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for instructions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of cities by GDP

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of cities by GDP. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hewitt

Hi Larry, I see you've edited the John Harold Hewitt page a lot. I think the page should be at John Hewitt (poet) not John Harold Hewitt. Per WP:COMMONNAME, he doesn't seem to have used Harold. Harold was added by whoever moved the page from John Hewitt back in 2007, to disambiguate it from the other Hewitts. What do you think? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me so I'd support such a move. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Cordless Larry. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  13:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mark Kermode

Well, they are used by his blog readers as well - my general feeling is that that is how he is referred to by friends and readers. But you are right they do need referencing. How do you reference a podcast or a blog entry? Hmm... Help needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervidin (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You can use {{cite episode}} to reference the radio show and {{cite web}} for blogs, although note the discussion about blogs at WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned the Good Doctor nickname in the radio section of the article, along with a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignore

I think the best thing to do is ignore this talkpage excess he will get tired of doing this after a while when we don't respond. I don't think a template over the whole article is really all that useful, maybe some inline tagging of specifics. Polargeo (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree with you. I had hoped that the anonymous editor would become more reasonable if I tried to encourage more constructive behaviour but we don't seem to be getting anywhere. On the template issue, I think that the lack of citations calls for more serious action than some inline tagging - there are whole sections without references. How about individual templates on those sections, combined with inline tags for unsourced statements in other sections? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You tried and I admire that. Yes highlighting the sections would be useful. I think that as a lot of the article is well referenced the overriding template is a bit misleading. Polargeo (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll template the sections instead then. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

happy new year ;) --JackNassar 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

hiya

Hi there. I stopped by to bosnian war topic today and I noticed that some old numbers were missing. On the talk page I didn't wnat to get too involved, but I figured that a source was missing. Do look into the link that I posted - perhaps that can help. Cheers, (LAz17 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

Rawabi

why don't u wanna let me change????

i am adding the most official and usefull information about Rawabi from Rawabi itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackNassar (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons. Firstly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for promotional purposes (which is what the material you want to add amounts to) per WP:PROMOTION. Secondly, you've lifted the material from http://www.rawabi.ps/ and it therefore constitutes a copyright violation. Also, in adding the material you overwrote what was already there and failed to employ any formatting or structure as expected from a Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

whats is your problem??? i am not promoting any promotionnal purposes!!!!! I am just correcting the information and adding the most official and updated infor about Rawabi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also need your help in categorizing the page and adding pictures and maps! --JackNassar 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)--JackNassar 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Text such as "The Masterplan integrates exemplary planning and design principles" and "It also provides direction for the way the new city will grow and flourish" is clearly promotional and not encyclopedic. Furthermore, as stated above, much of it involves copyright violations. I'm sorry but I'm not willing to help if you speak to me like you have above. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

well....sorry for the inconvience... i am still new to wikipedia, and do not know how it exactly works. Anyways, I work for Bayti, the owner of Rawabi, and was asked to edit this page!

so why do not we just cooperate together and make this page better! as I wanna make Rawabi's page as official as any other city and wanna also add maps and pictures. Thanks for ur kind understanding and help

--JackNassar 11:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What maps and pictures do you have in mind? We need to consider Wikipedia's copyright policies when adding such material. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, since you work for the company investing in Rawabi, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep the information as neutral as I can. If you want, I can send it to ur email address first, and then add it on Rawabi's page. As for the maps and pictures, I wanna add a map of Rawabi's location and some other pictures, where u can also find them on rawabi.ps whats ur email address? --JackNassar 11:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)-- I will keep the information as neutral as I can. If you want, I can send it to ur email address first, and then add it on Rawabi's page. As for the maps and pictures, I wanna add a map of Rawabi's location and some other pictures, where u can also find them on rawabi.ps --JackNassar 08:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

hey, i re-edit the text and would like to share it with u in order to be able to add it the Rawabi's page, and I wanna also create another page in Arabic. Can you send me ur email address? thx--JackNassar 09:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC) --JackNassar 09:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackNassar (talk • contribs)

Please take more care when commenting on my talk page. I've just had to salvage the page after you typed your comments over posts made above. In future, please add you comments to the bottom of this section and sign them using four tildes (~~~~). I don't want to publish my e-mail address. I suggest that you post the material you want to add at User:JackNassar/Rawabi. Let me know when you've done so and I can help you with it. Regarding the map and images, what is the copyright status of material on the website they are published on? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry for that. please send me an email at: nassar2005@gmail.com in order to send u the material that i would like to add. thanks--JackNassar 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackNassar (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't want to do this my e-mail. Please post the material at User:JackNassar/Rawabi as I suggested above. Once again, please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts rather than manually typing your signature. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

hey Larry, whats up? shall we move to the next phase?--JackNassar 08:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackNassar (talk • contribs)

I'll take a look at your suggestions later today. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

This is the research article from the ICTY [[3]]. Laz has said he wishes to create a separate article on this. User talk:Polargeo#reply. Regards Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although I already had access. I've commented on the discussion on your talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Headington Shark

Hi Larry, that's right, I was really just cleaning the article of a random comment that belonged in the discussion (if anywhere) and am afraid I have no news to offer about the shark. Best wishes Flapdragon (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, well thanks in any case. It's actually quite a nice, fun topic so I might do some more work to improve the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rawabi

Hello, please find below some articles published about Rawabi in the past few days, please add to Rawabi's page whatever you find appropriate. Thanks!

How Israel put the brakes on another Palestinian dream January 16, 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-israel-put-the-brakes-on-another-palestinian-dream-1869535.html

Rawabi is building dreams brick by brick By Wafa Amr January 16, 2010 http://gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/rawabi-is-building-dreams-brick-by-brick-1.568687

The Washington Post – DC, US http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/12/AR2010011200495.html --JackNassar 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackNassar (talk • contribs)

Hello, Cordless Larry. You have new messages at Blackknight12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Conversion templates

Hi, Larry. I'm wondering what you are planning to use the conversion template for. Does that one suit your purposes, if you didn't know that 20 cwt equals either one long ton or one short ton?

One short hundredweight = 0.05 short ton

One long hundredweight = 0.05 long ton

I think most people clicking on a link to "long hundredweight", or entering "long hundredweight" in the "Go/Search" box, will be more interested in why the "long" in there than anything else. At least those with some familiarity with English units will, but much of the world isn't really familiar with even the more common ones.

Did you happen to see where the conversion template {{CwtQtrLb to kg}} you were considering using sends the readers who click on the link for the long hundredweight, when it uses its "lk=on" parameter? Not to any of the places we've talked about, if you click on the link here.

{{CwtQtrLb to kg|20|3|7|lk=on}} → 20 long cwt 3 qr 7 lb (2,331 lb or 1,057 kg)

one problem with that template is that it doesn't visibly identify the hundredweight as "long" hundredweight. Same for "quarters", etc. Sure, a very few people will know that nobody who is using the subdivisions of a short ton would ever say "20 cwt 3 qtr 7 lb" to mean "2082 lb" or "1.042 ton", but that is beside the point. It doesn't mean they should skip the visual disambiguation when using those units in a Wikipedia article.

You've maybe already seen that there are lots of conversion templates at Category:Conversion templates to find the one you mentioned.

Of course, that other behemoth of a conversion template, {{convert}} which uses roughly a million template pages to make itself work (okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it does use well over 1,000 template pages), can if you figure it out, do some of those conversions as well:

{{convert|16|long cwt|MT|2|abbr=on|lk=on}} → 16 long cwt (0.81 t)

This one links to "hundredweight" Be forewarned that this overly complex template has a number of problems, the biggest of which is that it is a trap waiting to spring on unwary users and give them results they never intended. It has an extremely steep learning curve, in order to be able to use it well.

Here's one way that template can bite you in the ass. Note that you can often convert things like feet and inches, or pounds and ounces. So probably long tons and long cwt as well?

{{convert|3|lb|13|oz|kg}} → 3 pounds 13 ounces (1.7 kg)

{{convert|3|lb|13|oz|kg|abbr=on}} → 3 lb 13 oz (1.7 kg)

{{convert|3|lb|13|oz|carat}} → 3 pounds 13 ounces (8,600 carats)

{{convert|3|lb|13|oz|ozt|abbr=on}} → 3 lb 13 oz (56 ozt)

Those work, in various combinations.

I already know I can get

{{convert|3|long ton|kg|-1}} → 3 long tons (3,050 kg) as well as

{{convert|13|long cwt|kg}} → 13 long hundredweight (660 kg)

So lets try to convert 3 tons 13 cwt (long variety) to kilograms, all together, like we do with pounds and ounces:

{{convert|3|long ton|13|long cwt|kg}} → 3 long tons (3.0481407264000 t)

Ouch! Where's that "t" come from? I asked for kilograms. Why such strange precision in the result? Why doesn't the 13 cwt even affect the conversion?

Of course, on the edit page, these black boxes only show you the input value, not the output value. If you screw up real bad, you might get a big red error message on the article page after you save it. But that isn't the case here; it just doesn't give you what should logically be expected. It sneaks up and bites you in the ass instead, giving an error that might well go undetected. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I used {{convert}}, in the article The Headington Shark. Perhaps you could take a look at it for me? It seems to have worked but, like I said on your talk page, I'm no expert with Imperial weights and measures. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Some users like to claim that they don't have to specifically identify those hundredweight as "long", but I say it is important to do it the way this template handles it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that it's OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian Royal Family

Hello! I have nominated Bosnian Royal Family article for deletion. The reason for this can be found in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family. Related discussions have been taking place here and here. Your opinion is requested because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, and therefore you may be interested in the discussion. Regards, Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding comments to redirects

moved from user:ikip

Hi. I reverted this edit that you made to User talk:Mfstelmach since that page is a redirect, not a user talk page any longer. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the delivery of the newsletter to the wrong editor. I strived so hard after the delivery of the last newsletter to make sure that these mistakes did not happen again, but I guess editor names change, people leave, and people get banned.

Thank you for your wonderful dilegence in catching this mistake. I am updating the list of editors now. Ikip 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for getting to me

about my BBC world premier. (To be seen by me and mine in a month or two). I was wondering how far into my 15 minutes of fame this would take me (I used up about 6 minutes in a 1966 adventure there) and I figure that I have about 47 seconds left. Glad to spend it with you. Einar Carptrash (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was the drummer. Dixon, being short of drummers, . ... well I play in three or four bands, most of which played that day. The think that it was Los Coyotes (hmmmm..... no article?) that they wanted and probably used. Thanks again for the feed back. Carptrash (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)