User talk:JMF/Archive 2

Archive 2: October 2006 - September 2007

New Bradwell

Hi I added some more topical references to the section on the "bradwell blitz" linking it to the battle of britain page to put the incidence into historical context. The date fits so well with the progess of the battle at this point even the seemingly randomness of the attack premotes further reading, strongly linking the bradwell blitz with the overall period that this happened in known as the blitz, the forth and last phase of the battle of britain. Frrostie 20:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Bletchley

I collected the data from MKiObservatory. The settlements split up Bletchley into many parts. I added together the 2006 estimates of Far Bletchley, West Bletchley, Brickfields, Blue Lagoon Park, Water Eaton, Central Bletchley, Granby, Mount Farm, Denbigh North, Denbigh East and Denbigh West - but not Fenny Stratford. A map of settlements is here (in PDF). One thing though - I have no idea how to cite that source (I found this data a few weeks back with was reluctant to add it without a source).

It seems to me that any definition of Bletchley is arbitrary and it is hard to separate the areas south of the A421 and West of the A5 at all. This is why I only excluded Fenny Stratford from the maths. I will add a footnote for the population data stating as much. Also, I will be moving back to MK in just a few weeks time and my first wikitask when back is to work on the Bletchley article. Mk3severo 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted within an hour :) Mk3severo 00:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Winkelman

Added the Pete Winkelman page to my watchlist as you asked. I had checked it out in the early days of being a Wikipedian but it was very brief and although it wasn't completely neutral there was nothing on there that wasn't true, and at the time I wasn't really sure of myself and using Wikipedia so I left it. Zorro77 07:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy World and Homeworld 81

Thanks for the tip off. I don't have many people wanting to talk to me! Gralo 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My useful links

Antivandalism page is at WP:AIV.--Concrete Cowboy 23:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References and footnotes: WP:References, WP:Footnotes (use {{subst:Footnotes|100%}} )

Re Plough Lane

Cheers for the update. Yes I've had a look at the page and made a few changes. The new page looked pretty good and I made a few tweaks here and there (a few typos, a few irrelevant statements eg re new Vauxhall showroom on Plough Lane), but my main edit was to the Closure section where I did a bit of a re-work...

Mentioned the Taylor Report as this was the reason the club couldn't just stay at Plough Lane;
Re-emphasised the fact that the ground hadn't changed much from its non-league days
Removed the bit about Plough Lane being officially the smallest Premiership ground (if did mean "Premiership" - the club moved out before the Premiership was established - if you meant "top-flight" - I'm not sure this is true)

Anyway, take a look, see what you think. --MLD 11:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenny Stratford sta etc

Are you sure there are 2? Simply south 12:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanslope Image

Thanks for the heads up but the image is still there. Wp's servers seem to be running somewaht tardy of late hence the missing image gizmo. Seeing as you seem to be somewhat adjacent to the village a photo of the same view today would be an interesting juxtaposition, eh?Albatross2147 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Milton Keynes

Good work so far on the article! I will, as you suggested, write the development of Bletchley section. I've added Clapson's excellent book A Social History of Milton Keynes as a source, for I intend to add some additional information from this book throughout the article. Regards, Mk3severo 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despina Pavlou

Yeah ok, ill find a source, it was in the citizen this week on the front page but it was rele small, ill wait for the website to update. (Neostinker 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Milton Keynes - prior history

I didnt change random city references to town, this part of the the article talks about the area that became the new city. As it isnt a city then nothing became a "new city". The area became a new town. that is a fact. I know MK likes to call itself a city as it sounds better, and the article does make that clear, however in my view this particular line is wrong to use the word city as the area never became a city, new or otherwise. Anyway if you prefer use City then fine, but i think its wrong.GazMan7 08:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comments on my talk page im afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Im not going to argue over the point as the issue is minor and detracts from Wiki. The arguments have been done to death in many places and on here before. I still feel the use of the word city is misleading, and to be honest in my view quite confusing in the article. However i do not want to get into a big argument over it and will not revert the change from city back to town again. Maybe MK will get true city status before too long and it wont matter anyway!!! :-) GazMan7 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nested categories

Hi Cowboy, I did have a reason for removing the category cycleways from Milton Keynes redway system. According to wikipedia, items that are part of a sub-category should not also be in the sub-category's parent category. In other words, if your cycleway is part of the sub category of "Cycleways in the Americas", and "Cycleways in the Americas" is a sub-category of "cycleways in the world", then your cycleway should not be in both categories. Instead it should be in the sub-category of "Cycleways in the Americas". In the case of the Milton Keynes redway system, it is in the sub-category "Cycle transport in the United Kingdom". That is a sub-category of cycleways. It should not be placed in the primary category of cycleways because it belongs in the united kingdom sub category and, thus, according to wikipedia, cannot be in the parent category of Cycleways. This is to avoid category crowding and to increase order in the category system. If we put all of the cycleways in the category "cycleways", there would be thousands of links in the category and it would be a big mess. Thanks for your question. You can find this information at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines and read guideline number 3. Take care - jaden311

Luton Uni

IS there anything we can do about this user, looks like the same one as the first part of the ISP is always the same, who is repeatedly vandalising the page?GazMan7 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting templates

I see that you used AWB to change many articles, to replace all instances of {{fc|Mytown}} with [[Mytown F.C.|Mytown]]. Why is this? The {{fc|Mytown}} technique is very neat and saves a lot of typing, so presumably there must be a good reason not to use it? --Concrete Cowboy 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the reason to use the template, you got it right on the mark. It saves a lot of typing, and is useful. However, since it is a template that never needs to be changed, or that needs to be updated in any way, shape, or form, substituting it helps to reduce server load in the long run. —Mets501 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do I understand correctly that it is not at all deprecated, but that a housekeeping robot will trawl around regularly, replacing the template format with the long format? So I can continue using it and your robot will be around eventually to clean up after me? --Concrete Cowboy 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can continue using the template, but it would be better if you used {{subst:fc}}, because it would save the bot the work of substituting it. —Mets501 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A test - trying {{subst:fc|Chelsea}}: Chelsea --Concrete Cowboy 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRMK

Hello,

Many thanks for your comments, I fully understand!

I will try and look at MK content and see if I can help.

Thanks

Einsteinradio 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Einsteinradio[reply]

MK Dons

10. July 01:38 CET - The MK Dons page has been vandalised as far as I can see "Milton keynes Dongs and The club formerly known as Wimbledon FC and things like that. I don't know how to cancel these changes and take it back to how it was before it was vandalised, tried but can't figure it out, so you or someone has to do it. -- Aediasse

I like the revisions to the MK Dons. It balances the ridiculously anti-Dons attitude of far too many people with more pro-Dons attitudes. Forgive my FA Cup revision of the other day. I was wrong to do that. I wanted to add the stadium one to reassure people of the latest comments from the club. O, I see what you meant by the miles and kms thing. I'm sorry. I just saw that it said that MK was about 70 kms from London. I should have realized they meant from some downtown point. And of course, Wimbledon is a distance away from that although not much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.205.5 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Good challenge though. AA route planner says that it is 62.4 miles from Plough Lane to the Hockey Stadium, not "over 70". I've corrected the WFC article. --Concrete Cowboy 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O, okay. I see then. My fault. Things get confusing some time. Geez. Only 62 miles though.

Peer reviews

Hi - i saw your request for peer reviews for History of Milton Keynes on the history portal. I put a similar request in for my article Indonesian National Revolution. Do you have any other suggestions to attract peer review attention to the article? Hope you can help. regards --Merbabu 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route descripter

The problem is, I've spoken directly with this chap, stating my objection to editing simply for the sake of editing, and he seems to have deleted my comment completely. I don't think this Mackensen fellow really wants to engage in discussion given all the time he's spent creating these (frankly pointless) new templates. Hammersfan 08/03/07, 13.50 GMT

See argument on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways Hammersfan 08/03/07, 14.50 GMT

Beg pardon, I responded immediately. [1]. Why haven't you? Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to cat

I will review. I think i should also look at the new canal link? Do you know what it is or am i thinking about the wrong area? Simply south 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i have applied the cat to the articles mentioned except the railway works as i am unsure. On a seperate note, i moved the grid system to lower case and fixed all the redirects, before reading the talk page, where i have left the same note. Simply south 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Simply south 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK postcode area

The NNNN in NNNN Postcode area was a place holder. I'm updating the postcode area topics and I've got a template article that I'm using. I forgot to replace NNNN with Milton Keynes. MRSC has already edited the topic & fixed it. WOSlinker 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T:WCML

See reply on talk page. Simply south 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject England. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to England related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page!. Thank You.

MK article status

I have run an automated review which gives hints etc for getting the good article status. Once the article has this it can move towards an A rating. see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment.

Hope this helps!!GazMan7 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review tester

Hi, to run the tester copy

// Script from User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js importScript('User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js'); //User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js

to your monobook, and save. Refresh your cache on that page (on Windows explorer press Ctrl and F5)

then go to the page you want to check and open it to edit.

There should be a new tab at the top for the review, if you click on this it opens a screen with all the suggestions.

If you would rather just ask me whenever you want it running, its no problem id be happy to help!!GazMan7 08:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Monobook allows you to run scripts within Wiki (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Monobook). Such as this peer review one or also Vandal tools.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Concrete_Cowboy/monobook.js

If you copy the script to this then save you should then be able to run the peer review. Its not perfect but it certainly helps. Good luck getting the GA status on MK!GazMan7 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its up at the very to next to log out - it could be to do with firefox but i dont really know. If it doesnt work at all just let me know which pages you want reviewing and ill do them for you. GazMan7 18:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Murdoch

Concrete Cowboy, perhaps you'd like to have a look at the Stuart Murdoch article. In my opinion it could be worded a bit more neutraly towards MK Dons. Since you did a lot of good work on the main MK Dons article I thought you might like to neutralise it a bit. If you don't let me know and I'll have a go. You might also want to move this comment into your MK Dons section above -- Zorro77 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

link on mk dons

I'm not that bothered either way but labelling it spam was incorrect. --Nate 12:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless and noble work on many Milton Keynes related articles. Well Done! :D J S Firefox 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

lol, I've not been on wikipedia long, and it seemed that every MK article I turned to for info (geography coursework... groan! :( ) you'd made better in some way. Cheers also for changing the references section to external links (well, link.) in one of my very first articles Milton Keynes and Border Counties Youth Football League. I look forward to working with you on other MK articles. All the best, J S Firefox 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I think!

Thanks 4 the advice. I think I'll start a St. Paul's article, as that's where I go to school J S Firefox 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Park

Publisher added - Bletchley Park Trust. Rjm at sleepers 14:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Keynes - GA push?

If you have enough time, we could try making a push towards Good Article status for Milton Keynes. There seems to be a fair amount of work which I'm sure two people working on could resolve! Let me know what you think. Severo^TC 12:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References is what I essentially thought. Content-wise it is there or thereabouts. It is just references, MOS, references, MOS and so on. BTW, you can nominate articles which you have heavily contributed, but you can't do GA reviewing on articles you have contributed. I'll make a start on referencing probably this evening, and I'll knock up something for the talk page to ask other editors to help!

History of Milton Keynes—I did not realise this had not been nominated for Good Article. I've nominated it today, but there is some backlog at the moment so it will probably be looked at in a week or so.

regards, Severo^TC 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, History of MK was judged to have failed, but, it shouldn't have. It should have been put on hold - a poor decision by the reviewer it would seem. Nevertheless, the one area that was judged to have been weak we can address and renominate/review. Regards, Severo^TC 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for further feedback but didn't get anyway – I will leave a note on the talk page to that extent as well so when it is reviewed next time the reviewer will be able to see we didn't get any feedback. He was referring to the whole section, although when he said uncited he must have meant undercited—as there are three cites—although I will agree not enough. I'll see if I can provide some from my bookshelf tonight. As far as an infobox goes, I don't think there is one. The closest is {{infobox England historic county}} which doesn't apply for obvious reasons :-p -Severo^TC 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On milestones, if a reviewer questions them due to either listcruft or lack of references, we could just remove them (they would still be in the history if we later decided it was the wrong idea). After all, the prose is what makes the article. Likewise with the infobox. I'm very much pro-infobox, I've designed 3 or 4 from scratch and edit various others. However, if there isn't one, there probably doesn't need to be one. As more History of... articles develop (most are stubs), then someone may make an infobox. But, for Milton Keynes, I don't think we need one - at least not for GA. We'll see when we take it to the next level though :) Regards, Severo^TC 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed with just the suggestion of a copyedit! I think the more we cite opinion, the better, and less partial, this article will become. I think this article could achieve FA fairly soon... Severo^TC 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean WikiProject League of Copyeditors. The trouble with that is they have over 4000 articles on their to-do list... I think we could also do with some old photo's from the early years after designation. Regards, Severo^TC 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I had made some notes from the structures of a few GA and FA UK city/town articles, so this serves as a useful resource. I've been busy doing a few other wiki tasks lately but I've been collecting resources for this one :) -Severo^TC 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

Please don't remove wikilinks from dates. Use of them allows user preferences to display their chosen format. See WP:DATE for more details. Sʟυмgυм • т • c 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snelshall Priory

Snelshall Priory is started. Abbeys and priories in England#Buckinghamshire lists a few others which, although not necessarily in MK, are important to priories in MK, namely those at Newton Longville and Lavendon. Regards, Severo^TC 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers, which I f'd up anyway. Sorted now though, and they look different! Severo^TC 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradwell Blitz

Did some further minor edits to the section as it was overlong concerning Wolverton and I felt it better to direct the reader to relevant sections on the Blitz and the battle of britain rather than drawing conclusions from the text. These sections put the event into context, demonstrating that it was not such a random act as local myth would suppose. Frrostie 14:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Collins (footballer)

I've changed the Sam Collins page into a disambiguation page now. I'm not sure if the MK Dons player can have an article, as he's never played in the League. But, maybe he can as he's played in the Football League Trophy.. Is that what you were looking for?? Thanks, Mattythewhite 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It'll be his year of birth, and the other Sam Collins will be at "Sam Collins (footballer born 1977)".

WikiProject Milton Keynes

I was wondering, what do you think about the idea of a WikiProject Milton Keynes? Severo^TC 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a little thing at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Milton_Keynes - if you could post a link to that on a few other MK contributors talk pages it would be great to try to drum up some interest first. The guide says that the scope of the Project is often similar to the number of links to the main article - which in the case of Milton Keynes is nearly 500. I'll get cracking on a few other things in the mean time, to be ready to launch August 1. Severo^TC 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change of ident

Concrete Cowboy is dead, long live John Maynard Friedman. (The joke had worn thin). --John Maynard Friedman 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for keeping a check on my user page and talk page earlier. Regards, Severo^TC 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Thanks

Thanks a lot John. That was my first entry on Wikipedia and I am still learning the ropes - so your advice is welcome! Frankieparley 05:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Moot Court Programs

I sincerely don't know how the "moot court" article can be considered complete without mention of the first and only ranking to evaluate American moot court programs - bestmootcourtprograms.com. Pre-law students are nuts about rankings. Accordingly, law schools are nuts about their rankings. Two law schools have already touted their rank at bestmootcourtprograms.com. It was cited as the authority in a wikipedia footnote (by someone other than the administrator of bestmootcourtprograms.com). Before the BMCP ranking, law schools would say they were the best at moot court. Such a claim was never controverted because no one had any profit incentive to collect and add-up the finishes across large moot court competitions. There remains no profit incentive. But BMCP does it anyway. BMCP has yet to receive a penny in compensation. Please contact TheRanker@BestMootCourtPrograms.com if you need to verify the previous sentence. BestMootCourtPrograms.com is not an advertiser in the traditional sense of the word - it has received no remuneration. Additionally, it is the ranking that American moot court programs are scrambling to game and win. Soon, American moot court programs will stop sending their teams to any competition with 23 or less teams, because the ranking only incorporates results from competitions with 24 or more teams. This is a change-the-game type of "advertiser." Isn't wikipedia in the business of letting the world know how the game has changed? I hope so. I love learning from wikipedia. Jimdugan 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're conservative in your estimation of notable advertisers, you may wish to look twice at leaving undisturbed the following links currently posted under the "See Also" section of your "moot court" article: Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition The Annual Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (Vis Moot) The European Law Moot Court Competition Moot Alumni Association (MAA), the Alumni Association of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot NOTE: anything that is a moot court competition (and, I'm guessing, an "alumni association" of a moot court) is probably promotional in nature as moot court competitions normally charge a hefty fee to participants. to the extent that Jessup is allowed to remain because it is a notable "advertiser," then bestmootcourtprograms.com should be allowed to stay as a notable "advertiser." however (unlike Jessup, I'm guessing), bestmootcourtprograms.com has not yet received a penny in compensation from anyone.Jimdugan 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moot court

I really think you'll like my "edit" of the "moot court" article. I have deleted any reference under "See Also" to articles that provide information on moot court competitions (or "alumni associations" thereof, whatever those are) on the grounds that moot court competitions are nearly always fee-generating, which means that correspondent articles will probably be viewed by "wikipedia" as advertising (as I've been made to understand wikipedia's meaning of the term). If you decide to reinstate these references, I hope you'll give second thought to my references and articles regarding BestMootCourtPrograms.com, which is a notable "advertiser" in the same realm as the competitions I deleted today. To the extent that it is within my power, I'm not going to allow deletion of BestMootCourtPrograms.com on grounds that implicate links you're leaving undisturbed (links I've deleted today). Further, to the extent that I can, I will maintain consistency in the "standards" policing the "moot court" article, so that wikipedia's audience will not have to view the "moot court" world through a Eurocentric lens -- a lens that should become apparent to anyone tracking your edits of the "moot court" article.Jimdugan 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]