This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kbthompson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
He's inactive and on a final warning. If he resurfaces with more vandalism, there's a good chance he'll be deep-sixed. Kbthompson (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Newbies
I used to be a teacher so I get very annoyed when someone leaps on a new editor from a great height rather than encouraging them. It is wikipedia policy also not to bite the newbies: which, however, the wikilawyers conveniently forget whenever it suits them. Colin4C (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think everybody should at least be given the benefit of the doubt, and treated like a decent human being until they prove otherwise. The clash of 'life-crisis' middle-aged male egos is almost worse than the many examples of teenage angst and pre-teen smut around here. As to behaving like a complete * to new people who dare to display an opinion - well, if that were one of my students, I'd have to pass them onto the specialist PC-re-education brigade. Eventually, it comes down to the fact that if ever any of these people were to meet in real-life they would just be embarrassed by their behaviour. I think in about 8 years of running on-line forums for students and lecturers at the OU, I only ever had to suspend one student from contributing - and she went on to get herself chucked out of the university (eh, unheard of - she was seriously barking).
People here are all volunteers, and I've seen some worthwhile contributors just stop after one of those run-ins. There's no reason not to be robust, but WP actually has quite a useful set of rules for people to play nicely. Then there are people who are adept at using those same rules to take any complaint and pass it back to you neatly packaged in red tape. As I say, don't rise to the bait and don't let them get to you. Stick to the article content.
Also I guess that a fair few of wikipedia editors are kids who e.g. are expressing their enthusiasm for some juvenile vampire novel etc. See vampire literature. A bloody shame, if then some fat arse cranky middle-aged git editor starts ranting that said juvenile vampire novel is 'not notable' and gives the juvenile editor the benefit of his bile. I think the wikipedia is a valuable educational resource and that if kids are encouraged to participate rather than being shouted at by bilious middle-aged twats then there is hope for education and developing the life of the intellect in the general population. Colin4C (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the general idea, it is leavened by the need to produce a quality encyclopaedia. One of the notions is 'laddering' (if there is a theoretical basis) - slightly more clued up youngsters provide the less clued up ones with the clues needed to move forward. As to the vandals, you'd be surprised how well the warning system works and they don't need to be blocked - of course there are some that just can't stop themselves. There's as much pent-up anger in the teens as in the cranky old-gits - and as for the ones in the middle ...
On my way back, the car in front did a 900 degree pirouette on the A13, before slamming into the crush ... I'm not in the best of moods. Kbthompson (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I believe you are an administrator with an interest in London articles, hence raising this with you. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether the recent edits by User_talk:194.60.38.10 should be regarded as acceptable. I have no particular interest in this article but it is on my watchlist since I did a minor edit to it. The IP (registered at UK Parliament Information Systems, with many warnings) has made a number of edits to this article recently, most recently reverting what I felt to be in the interests of political NPOV. I'm not suggesting that local opposition to this plan should not be reported. However it would appear to me as an outsider to be a case of unanimous local opposition, including the (Labour) Mayor of London, the (Labour) MP, the (Conservative) Bexley council, an individual (Conservative) councillor who has organised a petition to central government, and no doubt local Greens, Lib Dems etc. Until recently the article included a link to an article (not on a party website) in which the local MP set out his evidence to a public enquiry. This has been removed and the article now contains no fewer than 6 'references' that are direct links to a party website. The article as currently worded could be viewed as a political puff for an individual councillor in the run-up to local elections. Am I being over sensitive? Pterre (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Put a tag on the page and advice on the talk page. I know nothing of the development, so can't really change it without a lot of research - since you're already clued up, maybe you could have a go. I'm sure much of the case against can be made from comments in the national and local press, without resort to lauding the praises of individual councillors and referring to party websites. Kbthompson (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Do be temperate in your dealings with a parliamentary IP address, many people might read it. These blocks have to be reported to the Wiki-press office. They'll probably still make the block, but will dress it up in nice clothes, before releasing the news to the world. Kbthompson (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hope your escapade on the A13 was not serious! Thanks for your response and comments on the article's talk page. I hesitated to edit it again as I felt it would just get reverted, but will have a go later if on-one gets there first. I think a reasonable balance would have something about councillor Leaf (not necessarily named) as he seems to have put a lot of work in, but it should also include the John Austin (MP) link because this spells out the case against as submitted to a public enquiry. As you say, there ought also to be a case in favour. At the risk of being branded a supporter of the scheme (about which I know nothing beyond having lived within wheezing distance of Edmonton incinerator for a while) I'll see if I can find anything that is not a PR puff from Cory Environmental. Pterre (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I was plodding at 60 - the 4x4 passed me at about 80, then wobbled to the left, wobbled to the right. Did a triple sulco - and back ended the barrier going the other way. An object lesson in Newtonian mechanics - and not going too fast in the wet. I braked, hit the hazards and full fogs all in one smooth movement (it was pissing it!) .... Just a little too exciting for a Friday ...
the recycling website quotes the director of the incinerator project - so, that should probably go in. It's not a question of being a supporter, it's about providing balance. Personally, I don't see much difference between burning, burying, or dumping waste at sea. We shouldn't be accepting large quantities of packaging in the first place. As to their plan to cut down on plastic bags; I'm required to separate my recycling - essentially into plastic bags - go figure. The council doesn't supply dustbins - heh, there go more plastic bags. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
On 29 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article East Smithfield, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Do you believe that it is aceptable to now add information about the novel, SILVER, to the popular section about pirates? The novel did receive a full page review in the New York Times Book Review. I spoke with the publisher-the best source-and the editor told me that the book is selling well. I asked this question on the my talk page several weeks ago, but did not receive any comments from the community. What are your thoughts?
As I said before, without consensus there is no guarantee others will find it acceptable. A mention of the book in that section may well be appropriate - as long as it is not given undue precedence over the other entries. It still seems that there is an issue of conflict of interest. Notability is not determined by sales, but rather by critical interest - you might have more luck if you can reference the book to a national newspaper review, such as the NYT Book Review - NOT a blog or publishers information. Kbthompson (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I just made a small attempt to make music hall a bit more coherent by eliminating some of the block listing but it obviously still needs a great deal of work and tidying up. Also put in a mention of the Empire, Leicester Square which we somehow seemed to have overlooked heretofore. This is evidentally a vast subject which is not at all easy to get a handle on and on which the literature is as vast as it is obscure...(which literature, however, I am slowly ploughing through). Colin4C (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean. If we're to get it to FA we need a major revision - probably breaking it up into a number of sub-jects. Benny Green is wonderful - but totally unusable as a reference. The Beerbohm stuff is priceless, but how do you reduce it to a sound bite? I'm hoping I'll have a bit more time soon. All the best. Kbthompson (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Think Beerbohm would get himself arrested today...As for Benny he does seem to hang around in Leicester Square a lot: with his ballet dancers and demi-mondaines. What was going on in the East End, suburban, provincial and world-wide music halls is more obscure. I am fascinated by the minor music halls of the East End etc, but will probably have to engage in original research to find out more. The legal technicalities are puzzling also. At the moment I am grabbing any likely looking items from second hand book stores. Also some stuff buried in the basement of our library which sometimes the staff can find if you pronounce the words very slowly and repeat yourself three times whilst doing a dumb show with hand gestures. Colin4C (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
He pursued girls a third his age, so, yes ... a lot of the East End stuff is actually written up - just need to get it together. Of more concern are the little suburban ones - East Ham, Stratford, West Ham - had about 20 of the things! There was a very active entertainment culture. Also the Jewish East End theatres - all this stuff is rapidly becoming lost. Kbthompson (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I love the political incorrectness of the whole thing including, inter alia, Max Beerbohm's obsessions, tableau vivants, demi-mondaines, black and white minstel shows, corny cockneyisms, songs about avoiding paying the rent, etc etc etc. Colin4C (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Thanks for putting up the article. Well done! The information at the bottom about the various theatres called Queen's Theatre might be copied to some of the others (or put into a footnote in some) to give historical informaton about the name. If you want to nominate it for DYK, I imagine that the hook should either deal with the fact that the theatre was only open for 11 years. Or, you could do a hook about the Pompeii production disaster. The DYK folks like quirky stuff like that. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Done ... thanks for the help - an alternative would be that it was the home of the Odhams Press for nearly a century, and only a theatre for 11! - been tied up lately, need to get a few things to GA sometime. Maybe even gear up for the slaughter of an FA ...? Kbthompson (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
this is what I get for not editing Wikipedia for over eight hours. Gah.
I was planning on responding the the anon this morning, but business meetings kept me tied up until now. As I understand it from reading the content of the resolved issue, Dispute Resolution is where we have been directed, yes? Sorry for not contributing; I didn't mean for you to deal with the complaint without my input. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have a need to resolve your content issues in dispute resolution; I have no idea which forum - that's essentially something you'll have to agree on. The anonIP was making complaints that have now been resolved in other fora - so, not ultimately a matter for WP:ANI.
As I said to the anonIP, you would both benefit from taking a day off - you appear to have anticipated my advice. Not every post requires a reply, not every revert demands a counter revert. My favourite piece of advice (to anyone) is think twice, act once - something I wish I could do more of. As to getting into these disputes, don't. Walk away - trust other editors to deal with it, or come back when the issue has cooled off.
My immediate advice would be to start over, assume good faith on their part, and above all remain absolutely civil - not everyone has a sense of humour, or the ability to roll with it. It would not go amiss to extend an olive branch, or offer to parley. Y'all take care now Kbthompson (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:1856 CanterburyHall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1856 CanterburyHall.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
I was a bit surprised to see you had stepped outside your official capacity and made biased remarks to an individual I had lodged a complaint against. Quite awkward. Anyways, your encouragement found a warm ear and willing hand. I am now being stalked around wiki and reverted in articles only I had originally edited in by someone never even in such topics. Old settled issues have been reopened, clear opinions from the Reliable Source Notice Board are being fought tooth and nail, actions are being threatened, etc. You've offered protection to a Troll and it's been accepted. Myself? I now realize that both my attacker and I know that your board will offer no neutrality. Such is life. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the post placed outside the official proceeding, on the attackers personal talk page, that I'm speaking of:
:Personally, I keep the oppose at RFA, already templated and handy - so it can hit the skids before the proposer posts .... 8^). In respect of recent additions consider the executive punishment withdrawn. It does look like someone might be truly, truly two stops short of Dagenham. Kbthompson (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think he left out the part where I kicked his dog and ate the last banger from the platter. I've offered DR, and the request (as well as subsequent posts) indicate that it was rejected via silence. I am not going to file the civility AN/I, but he's swiftly moving into that gnat-like non-agf territory where he gets ignored by me and everyone he pisses off. I had come here to let you know I tried, and even stayed my hand when I could have filed the AN/I that would likely have seen him blocked, but the feller apparently acts w/out thought of consequence. I wanted to let you know that I did in fact try. - Arcayne(cast a spell)07:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
AnonIP missed out the bit where s/he went on to attack other users, and claim them as Arcayne's meat puppets. At that point I reiterated in the forum that they both need to just sort out their differences and get along; and additionally that AnonIP now had to build bridges with other users. Another admin thought the best way to deal with the situation was to semi-protect the page in question. Let them deal with your foolishness and disruption, I've reached the end of the help I can give you.
Meantime, AnonIP continues by thinking everything posted on wikipedia must be about them. Wake up, it's a big place - avoid each other. Kbthompson (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've told you before: You must concentrate on article content, not behaviour. I think the admin is trying to concentrate your mind on that, and you've risen to the bait provided by someone else. Like Arcayne (see above), you must learn when to leave it and not rise to the bait. As I've said, not every post requires a reply and you need to trust other editors to fix it, or challenge behaviour. Walk away, have a cup of coffee. Above all, don't say something you'll live to regret and seek to calm situations, not inflame them. Every forum now seems to want to specialise as to what they will, and will not consider. The sockpuppet business needs to be taken to that forum - and it was, and the matter appears to have been resolved. Another forum won't consider the matter because they don't have 'checkuser' - which reveals the contributing IP.
On the Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal page it says "We do not impose sanctions or make judgments." If that is the case why has what I said there been taken down and used as evidence to both judge me and threaten me with sanctions? That is just not fair. Anyway if that is their attitude I am withdrawing from that forum. Alice in Wonderland makes more sense. Colin4C (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as most wiki fora are concerned, Catch 22 does seem to make more sense. If you complain you are ipso facto disruptive. Just make your points about content without any complaints about behaviour - no matter how oblique. Think before posting and remember its not a conversation - in which sarcasm, irony and other idiomatic conventions can be made clear. Relax and don't be drawn into the games people play. Kbthompson (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Kb. I see that the article on Glory Days (musical) has been deleted as not yet notable. This musical will open on Broadway in previews on April 22, 2008, official opening May 6. It also had a run in a professional regional theater in Virginia. I didn't notice that there was a move to delete it until it was too late for me to explain the notability. Can you reinstate it, please? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, if notability not explained immediately, it is just as likely to be tidied away without further ado - so, pls fix it. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for pointing that out, I was not aware of that policy. I looked into other churches in London and England before moving so thought that someone missed a period. mark there. If both versions are correct (although I prefer the St. version) then that's fine with me. Gryffindor12:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's wrong (either way) ... merely, it makes work to move it. Anyway, your motives were genuine. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Islington and Highbury
Vis-a-vis a your editing of Den Wyatt in Notable residents of Islington. Though I am not aware who Den Wyatt is, and granted he may not be "notable", it may be worthwhile knowing that Highbury is an area in Islington as a search for Highbury in Wikipedia will reveal. Therefore, if this person is notable and deserving of WIkipedia then he is a resident of the London Borough of Islington. This may be of future use. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickClarkM (talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you have altered hectares to km2 in a couple of articles. Is there an official policy on this? As a general rule (outside the scientific context, using Scientific notation) I would argue for using units involving the least potential for screwing up due to mis-counting leading or trailing zeros. From this viewpoint we should compare ft2 with m2, acres with hectares, or miles2 with km2, depending on the size of the numbers. Granted the hectare is not an SI unit for scientific purposes, but nor are many of the units we use every day such as the millimetre, centimetre or kilometre. According to SI derived unit the SI unit of area is the m2, which is clearly impractical for many purposes, though it is what I had to use in my (urban) land use survey days. I'm not a great fan of either acres or hectares, but Hectare says "The Comité International des Poids et Mesures classifies the hectare as a unit that is accepted for use with SI", and in practice both are generally used to describe plots of land. Pterre (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hectare is listed as a non-SI unit under {{convert}} - from hectareA 100 m square is one ha. Its base unit, the are, was defined by older forms of the metric system, but is no longer part of the modern metric system. There's a direct relationship between the two, anyway - some I've come across have been listed as sqkm/ha - so, no point there ... Is there any guidance at 'how to write about settlements?' cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, a 'well built' woman. What's the point of calling her 'fat' in a complete non-sequitur in the article. The addition seems to be calculated to only upset her family and inflame. Kbthompson (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No, heart attacks are correlated with obesity. The two are not the same. If you have access to (say) the coroner's report identifying specific characteristics relating to the poor woman's death - in context - then you're welcome to add them. Just making an off-the-wall unrelated observation is merely inflammatory. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Stratford Langthorne
Thanks very much for your message - very speedy! I prefer the above spelling, which you can find in the Victoria County History. I hope to add more to the article when I have time so thanks for the link. Any additions you might want to make also very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I liked the categories you added. Interesting to note that the only two articles in the [[Category:Religion in Newham]] are about buildings on basically the same site - the one long disappeared the other only at the planning stage. I wonder if those who wish to build the mosque are aware of the previous existence of the abbey. Newham has a much above-average level of religious observance (Source: an article in the journal of East London studies hosted at UEL). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, in that you often find that the same things have gone on in the same places, in London over millennia, for absolutely unrelated reasons. Previous generations were drawn to that site for water - hence power - modern ones because it is a transport nexus with available land. Normally, that category has at least Category:Churches in xxx in it. No-one's written about any Newham churches! Kbthompson (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Hi, you changed back an edit on this article, but I think you missed the one before that, which I think is by the same person. Can you have a look at the discussion on Gina Bold. Something seriously needs to be done here. Vandalproof is required.
It's been reported at WP:BLPN, hopefully they can sort it out. I had a look at the sources and either she's completely rewritten a part of her life - or, the stuckists are being excessively ironic. I'd recommend putting the information back into the page in a completely neutral fashion with cast iron verifiable references. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your view on my problem with removing the link to the resident's web site because of no prior legal owner's permision. You made an interesting point about Wiki servers being in Florida, USA as I knew. The owner of the resident's web site is in England and their site legal info states that it is covered by English law. Because I am a member of their user community, so am I as it pertains to their site. However, the servers for the site are located somewhere in the USA. I'm not located in any of the above. So it would be somewhat difficult if somebody really wanted to do "dueling case law" or "dueling statue books".
Trying to be a good Wiki user, I felt that I should remove the link and do the posts. Especially since the original linker is probably a member of the same on-line community that I am. I'll probably be in for it one place or another, especially since he is probably a big voice in the on-line community.
Actually the web site does have non-member resources available which would interest sombody specializing in a planned regeneration community. Planning documents and some other stuff. The resident's forum is locked though.
I see that you and I share some of the same geographic interests. I've come across your edits a number of times. My big interests are the Greenwich, Woolwich, Silvertown and the Isle of Dogs/Canary Wharf areas. --TGC55 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and you were probably right to bring it up. Sometimes in internet law, you go round in circles until you disappear up your own tailpipe. For instance, while it is doubtful that posting a libel would be pursueable under English law - don't it's against wikipedia policy, since they don't want to make new law - reposting that libel on servers hosted in the UK clearly would.
Generally, webmasters like to know when pages link to their pages, so that when they move them (for some reorganisation), they can link to the new page. Generally they like linking, as it moves their site up the Google ratings (although wiki uses 'nofollow' tags, so there's no benefit to them from here).
Yes, they were the stamping grounds of my youth - a time when a good day out was riding the Woolwich ferry all day... I try to add some quality to articles, sometimes I may succeed. If I get time sometime soon I will try to take Greenwich to GA - you're more than welcome to add some of your local knowledge. (Ah, Greenwich - gathering chestnuts in the park...). Take care Kbthompson (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh man! I forgot to mention North Woolwich (part of Silvertown? -- I think) and the, in my mind, much loved Woolwich Ferry. My wife & I spent many hours queuing up on one shore or the other to use the ferry. Mostly on the north shore. I can happily say that some of the best years of my old age were spent in that area. I'm mostly an east Greenwich (pre-1965) guy (Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich), though my life there was for almost 3 years in the 21st century. I certainly do hope to continue contributing to articls relating to the area for years to come.
BTW, wielding the mop isn't all spine chilling bugle calls, thundering hoofbeats, flashing sabers in the sun and, at the end of the day, big shiny gongs, is it? I imagined the Administrators as 'white knights' mounted on enormous (digital) chargers laden down with a large number of powerful weapons, riding in to rid Wiki-land of the scourge of the digital world. It's all about the mop, isn't it. Thanks for cleaning up my mess and giving me the facial wipes.--TGC55 (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hah, the administrator's role is actually quite tedious - mainly dealing with children leaving "poo" all over the place. It's a bit like being classroom monitor and seriously interferes with actually writing articles. We also supply digital tissues (mainly for the aftermath of quarrels).
I was dragged up (sic) in East Ham, so not so far away - just a river separating us. My father worked at Tate & Lyle in Silvertown, after spending his war in the US Navy (go figure) and some time after in the merchant navy, he washed up there. Not unnaturally, I was born nearby! User:Kbthompson shows where I washed up and boomeranged not so far from where I started. Toodle-pip, dragons to slay ... must sally forth ... Kbthompson (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently rewriting this. Can you confirm the reference for the 1899 lightning strike is George Arthur's article in London's Industrial Archaeology No.3? I don't have the book, but am reluctant to stick a {{fact}} tag on it. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's over a year ago. It was one of a number of articles I produced to try to provide coverage of Attractions in each borough for the borough templates. My normal way of working is to note where I got the information from in a ref, as I go along.
Looking back to the last version I worked on, that paragraph appears to be associated with the English Heritage listing details, but I'd say it actually came from here - and I actually didn't take the time to note it - except in the external links.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlackEagleSitePlan.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:BlackEagleSitePlan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, they are billed for three performances - transfer, or in-house company? Not particularly notable, but on the other hand - I'd assume good faith. I'll look forward to your appearance in Godalming (London's Poughkeepsie) gracing the G&S page ... leave it for the moment, scrub it in a couple of weeks as not particularly notable. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I knocked up a quick article on Walter Emden - architect of the Royal Court (and others) - to fill a significant hole. Comments and corrections welcome. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, they'll do (in some form); let me know what happens and I'll apply anything useful to the London one's. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Kb. I don't think I can tackle this until after Buxton. I have too much on my plate at present, with a lot of performing, as well as work and WP. Sorry! If you work on it, I'll try to do what I can, but I might not be much help. Hope you are doing well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
dyk Walter Emden
On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walter Emden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for your very sane comments and suggestions on my anxieties about the section Associated people, to which I will soon return with a sharpened quill. Thanks, too for the comment about Paddington's borough status which I have now swotted up on and clarified. (I trust you will amend if still necessary.) My parents actually dragged me away to Australia in the 1950s before the 1965 legislation. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's currently a serial killer template being used, which is em-bolding the text of the caption. This isn't typical to other articles, and I would prefer to find the specific code to fix it. Help? - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I friggin' hate html is a non-sequitur, as this is written in the wiki-parser - do you mean you friggin' hate wikipedia parser code? ...
The text hangs off an if clause if there's an image and it doesn't seem to me that there's anything in the image #if code to embolden it. Rather it seems not to be parsing correctly - and not resetting the emboldened heading. The template parser is far from perfect, in {{Infobox UKproperty}} {above}, I resorted to a 'sub-template' to get it to behave as I wanted it to. So, half an hour later and no progress, I don't think I can help with this one ... Kbthompson (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My initial appraisal (above) was correct. I realised that by explicitly defining a style for the caption, I could reset it. I still feel it's incorrect ... the 110% would be better replaced by "1.25em;", returning the style to "1.00em;" in the next style statement (instead of 90%) would render better than the % figs - essentially, it is far too arcane for you. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I could trouble you to point out to Theplanetsaturn (talk·contribs) about how, when asked not to post on someone's user talk page, they should actually stop posting there? The fellow (or gal) is apparently of the opinion tat they can ask me not to post and expect me not to post, whilst they post gaily at their whimsy. I must say, I am finding it somewhat difficult to give them the assumption of good faith when they are specifically goading me to respond. Sme assistance would be appreciated, as my next method of asking them to go away involves semaphore flags and hand-puppets. - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
Yes, Emperor Hirohito was renowned for running around China in the buff. Not sure the relevance, as could easily say it counts as one of the causes of WWII - complete with Spain, Abyssinia, etc.
Probably, the best way to put it is that 1939 was the year the empire on which the 'sun never set' weighed in, with India, Egypt, Hong Kong, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand - not forgetting the Falklands ... before that, the war could be characterised as post-colonial and neo-colonial brushfires. After 1939, the UK was at war with nearly everybody (mainly trying to grab bits of the empire).
That's when the Japs went for Vietnam, Burma, Shanghai international city and Hong Kong - to name but a few. From an Asian perspective, you could argue that the war didn't end until the Americans got booted out made a strategic withdrawal from Vietnam, as that was a consequence of handing it back to France.
As to the start of the war, well I always followed A. J. P. Taylor's notion that the first world war never ended and that the second world war was a consequence of the conditions imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles (see The Origins of the Second World War}! Kbthompson (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you see, BTW, that the war here has still not ended. The Luftwaffe tried to blow us up with a 1T Hermann this week ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The owner of the article has started giving me nasty notices on my page for my (latest) temerity in putting a sub-heading before Sept 1939, indicating that this is a significant moment in the conflict - as per every global history of the conflict. There is a 'gang of two' active there who are ruthlessly dedicated to making this one of the most misleading articles on the wikipedia: putting forward a fringe theory that 1937 was the start of the conflict as normative and allowing no mention of 1939 as at all significant. Any attempt to change it it greeted with systematic reversion and abuse on ones Talk Page. 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I advised another colleague recently, you do need to tone down the sarcasm - they really don't understand it and it clearly rubs them up the wrong way. I read through nearly everything and this is clearly an area in which both parties can't make progress. A brief look round the inter-webby shows that people nowadaze are careful to say the war in Europe started in September 1939 - and I think that's probably the best you can hope for. An introduction showing a timeline of the way in which the various local inconveniences escalated into full scale war is probably the best you can do. Whether local disputes can be counted in the war is really just a matter of opinion. Spanish Civil War - the allies inaction and German intervention is probably worth a mention - as well as Abyssinia.
I think you're caught up in an argument between Sino-centric and Amerio-centric historians/students who essentially regard the war in Europe as inconsequential. I'd proceed with caution, as someone wants to hit you with a big stick. Don't give them an excuse. Since you're clearly discussing the matter, then I don't think the 3rr/edit war threat can be made to stick.
First offence, technical violation, 12 hours. If agreement can't be reached between the participants, then it should probably be brought up at WP:RSN. Blogs generally aren't permitted, but when its the guy's personal blog addressing the issue in contention, then it's probably admissible - possibly with a caveat, as to source. Can I remind you, you're on a third edit and not to end up in the same position?
The criticism of Joseph Romm was in a blog, and Romm responded in a blog. So, it seems obvious that either both can stay or neither, but you can't keep the criticism and delete the response. That would clearly violate WP:BLP. If you prefer to remove the entire Criticism section, I would not object. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Corrected. There was an issue under the sometime between 1905 and 1912 licensing acts whereby smoking and drinking were banned in the auditorium of straight theatres. Music halls and variety theatres operated under different legislation - and certainly drink was banned about then - because of the new LCC (1899) flexing its muscles - but smoking was much later. Basically, the issue of the roof at this place is documented as that being the reason for it - so, I wouldn't take too much nonsense. (I remember smoking in the National Theatre, eight years ago, but that was during rehearsals, so probably doesn't count)! The dreaded Mr Sands is in the house. Kbthompson (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, well I don't think it was my tangled prose - the ref says it was for ventilation during the summer months - so, I removed the bit about smoking. The article need rewriting! Its a bit tangled, and there seems to be irrelevant detail included, but relevant stuff missing ... Put it on the list for when I have time. Kbthompson (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I got carried away (once it was set up, I just carried on) .... it's raining again - and I'm waiting for a phone call. Bring your umbrella .... Kbthompson (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see you have done a fine job of removing banner clutter. If you have any spare time I wonder whether you would like to have a look at cluttered Composers Project articles? The category tree is very simple (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Categories). Thanks. --Kleinzach09:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Not so easy - need to access the talk pages - easiest to go "cat:Stub-Class Composers", etc. There's 3,500 in that cat alone! ... And they're all going to need attention, as they're all gonna have WP-bio - some living, so they'll need the BLP flag to bring up the BLP warning .... OK, well we do the impossible - it just takes longer ... Kbthompson (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you keep an eye on me, and let me know if I'm making errors - just check a few, no need for every one! cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm done with those now - basically, they've all been done. Let me know if any categories have been missed - as you'd expect most of the FA, GA, etc were already pretty tidy; it was only where the bots had added more to the less visited stubs and starts that corrections were needed. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. However can I ask you whether you've done any automatic assessments while you have been doing this? I've been surprised to find a couple of Class C ratings. For example [2]. This is puzzling as the article is in any case stubbed. --Kleinzach 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Here's another one: [3] --Kleinzach01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The 'auto' flag doesn't work properly on WPbio, when the banners are collapsed - the request to review the auto-assessment doesn't collapse. In this case, I had to check the original article for content. If I agreed with the assessment, I just removed the auto flag - if I disagreed, I reassessed - but didn't change the article (so there's a good chance some of these may well be advertised as stubs). Some ticked sufficient boxes to go straight to C - rather than a bump to start. Hopefully, you're happy with those assessments. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
My pal is back; maybe you could say hello to him?
No not that one, the anon featured in the many attack ANI's (1, [4], [5]) and Fitna articles. He made a posting in an AN/I today with one IP and then another eight attack posts with another ([6]). Might I trouble you to look into this matter? I've filed the RfCU here, but it seems pretty clear I am dealing with the same individual. Wasn't he blocked indef? - Arcayne(cast a spell)05:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm clearing up work for this week today; off until Monday to see new grand-nephew and nieces; and give support to a shell shocked granny who has quadrupled her brood in the space of a week ... so, not really too much use in a scrap - try not to get yourself blocked in the meantime - even accidently!
My best advice would be to ignore the provocation - as in WP:DENY (although that essay seems a lot shorter than it used to be!). Responding only just encourages them to engage in a wheel war across the complaints boards. You personally look a lot better when you just take it on the chin and concentrate on improving the encyclopaedia. They're obviously not going to go away - and a range block is only really considered in extremis - because it disadvantages completely innocent vandals, I mean contributors ... I can review it Monday - but it'll probably all have blown over by then. Could consider requesting s-protection on affected pages? Kbthompson (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest you don't take Arcayne's word as Gospel? Arcayne fought tooth and nail a half dozen people over the definition of the word "Penultimate". He even claimed that he was an Oxford grad and that the BBC was wrong.75.57.205.135 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I've said it before to both participants, wikipedia is about creating an encyclopaedia. There are many ways to do that; but it is clear (to me, at least) that it is not constantly pursuing these arguments. Any administrative action is always evidentially based; never on an individual's say-so. Following Arcayne around and making claims when I know Arcayne to have spoken truely on at least two out of those three counts is disruptive on your part. It doesn't help your case that you duck responsibility for your posts by rotating your IPs. Too much of this is about managing your relationships and not enough about writing an encyclopaedia. Kbthompson (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe one can follow an editor that has 17,788 edits since 20 Sep 06. He's simply already everywhere. I merely pointed out that the Editor has a habit of fighting for fighting sake and has lied about his qualifications and elevated himself into a position of Authority on subjects being discussed in the past. To argue that the BBC is wrong, or that the OED has a misprint based upon ones fairytale claim to an Oxford degree should be pointed out, especially when the claims themselves are patently absurd. Simple facts such as the definition of 'Penultimate' or that the EU is not an NGO should never require dozens of editors fighting Arcayne and his false claims of special academic authority. It is bad for the Encyclopedia and it's mission. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I am going to respond to this, and then stop. AN/I was right - its best to ignore these sorts of folk. I didn't say the OED was wrong. The EU was considered an NGO at one point, but no longer. The BBC is wrong. Often. As is every other news organ relying on live performance and spotty English usage skills. I did attend Oxford. I did graduate from there with the two degrees I have previously noted, and no, I am not about to tell you which college it was. I am not better than anyone else, but you certainly test that theory. I have used the same account for almost three years. You can't even be troubled to use the same account for three hours. Now, I am done talking to you. You can either do something constructive, like edit an article professionally, or you can go away. I am guessing that the results of the RfCU will make that decision for you. - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Your claim to an Oxford degree, no I'm sorry, two Oxford degrees - one in Political Science and the other in International Relations is contradicted first by your exchange with the original poster that corrected you on your calling the EU an NGO:
the EU is not a single nation, nor is the UN or UAE. They are actually something called NGO's, or non-governmental organizations. ... we do not link flags to NGO's. -Arcayne
The EU is nothing BUT a governmental organization. Its purpose is to politically unite the countries within the European Community. it does not 'act on behalf' of any single state; it is a united entity. Ditto the UAE.. Kapowow
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,'' ... - Arcayne
It lacks all credence after this "original" claim that somehow the word "Penultimate's" meaning had "evolved":
Regarding the 'penultimate' stuff - not worries - as I said, it's just a word. I always thought is was used as next to the end, as in right before the ending. A slightly different meaning has become popular, like how the original phrase "buck naked" (meaning, naked as a male deer) becoming mispronounced so often that now people say "butt-naked". It would render me a crabby old man to decry the loss of the word meanings. It was also make me something of a jerk. Words evolve. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It has not. Your claim could be fully exposed for the fraud it is just by the lack of Oxford degrees in "Poli Sci" or "Int'l Relations". I personally am not fully conversant in Oxbridge minutia, but I do not believe Poli Sci exists as such there.75.57.205.135 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, a simple google shows University of Oxford – Department of Politics and International Relations, offering post-grad pol-sci qualifications. It's not rocket science. Now will you both go away - you weren't invited here for an argument - heh, that's right - you weren't invited here at all! This is not the paene ultimus but really, the ultimus legenda. Back Monday. Kbthompson (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Edmonton, London
Hi Kb. It's me again. On a earlier talk page you asked about aircraft manufacturing in the Lee Valley during WW2. I have it on good authority that parts of the de Havilland Mosquito were produced at the Lebus furniture factory in Edmonton at Angel Road, which lies close to the Navigation. Cheers Northmetpit (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that - the oral history that I had was to do with the relationship between canal barge size, engine and other component sizes - and the use of the Lee to move the bits. Interesting that it confirms that something was going on.
The whole area had a long history of arms manufacture from the Gunpowder factory at Waltham, to the civil war gunpowder mills at Hackney and Bow, to the National Projectile factory on Hackney Marshes .... cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Anglican v. Catholic
You may have a point. I'm assuming you're referring to the infoboxes on some articles. The reasoning, such as it is, is more or less this:
(1) From the Anglican perspective, I would say you're right, as most Anglicans will know inherently that any church which pre-existed the Reformation was almost certainly Catholic during that earlier time. Unfortunately, many others, including a lot of Catholics, will not know that quite so quickly.
(2) There is also the question as to the comparatively few, if any, although I assume there were at least a few, cases where the pre-Reformation church may not have been what we would call Catholic, but possibly Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Arian or Nestorian, or some other group. I would think that in most of those cases it would be generally relevant to indicate that the prior church was affiliated with whichever of those groups it was affiliated with. However, if we did so only in those cases, that might cause questions in the eyes of some as to why it is done in only those cases. I acknowledge that to date, in the compartively few articles I have reviewed, that I don't remember having seen any.
(3) Lastly, perhaps least importantly, perhaps not, in at least some of those cases it might well be (and probably to an extent is) the case that there may have been some aspect of the pre-Anglican history of the church of reasonable importance to the history of the Catholic church, but perhaps of less importance to Anglicanism. If that is ever the case, then the Catholic editors might be more likely or willing to add the material. Again, however, I'm not certain of the probability of that.
Of course, you are free to make any reversions to any articles to remove the content as you see fit. I aknowledge that I am less than really expert in most matters of English church history, and I can't imagine that I would be likely to object to removing such material, particularly considering that I don't even think I would necessarily see those changes if they were made. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
River Lee Navigation locks and weirs
Hello Kbthomson. Thank you for your contributions. Some advise please. Above Enfield the Navigation forms the boundary between Hertfordshire and Essex, so that the lock-gates are in separate counties, how would you categorize them? Northmetpit (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure ... narghh ... list both if it does form the boundary ... doesn't the natural water course form the boundary? That generally runs to the east of reservoirs, marshes, see River Lee Flood Relief Channel etc, etc .... Do feel free to correct where I've cocked up. hth Kbthompson (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Minor point - Cat "Locks of London" is subsumed in "Locks of England" - both shouldn't appear on an article. Might want to introduce "Locks on the Lee Navigation". cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt reply. Within London the natural course of the Lea forms boundaries but upstream the Navigation. Some maps use the towpath . All confusing. Thanks Northmetpit (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The GNU release statement was added to the appropriate London United website page early this morning (22/7/08). I've also made various additions/edits to the HCCA article that make it significantly different from what's on the London utd website.
I'm assuming you mean the large sheds. They form part of Orchard Wharf seen on this map (1969-74). It was previously marked as an engineering works - so, probably associated with shipbuilding. The works now seem to be largely derelict (going in on the satellite image). I used to live down that way (Limehouse) - so no current special knowledge - but hope to go down there sometime soon to try to get into the East India Dock, before the area becomes redeveloped.
I added some info, recently on the redevelopment, drawn from the RIBA journal; but noticed some correction was required, most of that has been filled in from sources (ref'd in the article). To my mind, the redevelopment seems a bit pie-in-the-sky, at the moment - but, you never know. It is somewhat overdense for an essentially island site. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was mainly meaning the large red-roofed building; some of my ancestors lived on Ann's Place, which ran approx. SW-NE in that vicinity, and my mum's trying to research our family history. Thanks for the information, link and map; I hadn't seen that one before. --Geniac (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that roundabout seems to have been there for a couple of hundred years - previously as a small square. You might want to look at London's Lost Village - for a bit of local colour. My forebears came from around Bethnal Green and Mile End (except for the Irish one's; and then mainly Huguenot - many weavers; but then they all started joining the navy.
The BH online page gives a fairly good description of the development of the area, from which I've tried to provide a short summary for the article (ref'd there). Most of the houses on the isthmus were swept away in the 1930s, there's not a lot to see round there now, except old factories. They will all be shortly swept away ... HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
...with DG. That's three different times you've painted us with the same brush, and it's growing tiresome. If I expect people to discuss edits and not sniping at editors, and ask that large-scale edits be discussed, that isn't considered a Bad Thing. If I additionally find my well of good faith depleted when i see DreamGuy do precisely the same things he has before, that is not uncivil. - Arcayne(cast a spell)19:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What can I say? You get brownie points for not snipping at DG, you can earn more brownie points by continuing that policy. There really is no need for the drama; for one brief moment, it actually looked like it might move forward - the article, that is. Kbthompson (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I now understand why you're whingeing. I excised the attack material and restored a former version of his page. I think you should regard DG's action as a momentary aberration and be generous - after all, we all make mistakes. But ultimately, that is up to you and Elonka. Kbthompson (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was pretty much the only one who didn't care at all about it. It was his page, and I never really talk to him unless he comes to the JTR page anyway. I will stay open-minded regarding DG; if he can remain polite and use discussions to build consensus, all is copacetic. - Arcayne(cast a spell)02:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
DG has just added Kb to his list of 'enemy admins'. Vide his latest comment on his User Page (inter alia violating his parole):
"Ah. Well, then that's even more bizarre. The rewrite was in response to a couple of admins complaining that the one that is there now was too vague and showed bad faith against editors in general. I changed it to make it more clear, and everything in it was factual -- Elonka and Arcayne have both been described by admins as having harassed me. Elonka additionally has been blocked for said harassment in the past. I don't see how it at all violates my arbitration parole, and certainly if someone objected to it a more reasonable response would be to explain the problem and ask that it be changed, not just take it upon themselves to delete it permanently from the history and block me. The two admins in question probably should have left it to more impartial people. Kbthompson is directly involved in the conflict in question, and this is not the first time Jayig has blocked me for a reason that had no policy basis. But hey, it's a longstanding tradition here that certain admins seem to treat policies as things they are freely allowed to ignore in order to strike out at people they don't like."Colin4C (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The admins made me create an attack page is up there with alien abduction and the transubstantiation of Tony Blair, as things I find difficult to believe. Both of them seem to be hissing at me - so, I can't be described as not being even handed. As to you, Colin4c; is there any real need to repeat these calumnies all over wikipedia? - or, are you trying to get yourself blocked so that you can re-vision facts to present yourself as victim, when in fact you're just pushing the envelope to create a reaction. You've been working too long on the Leninist stuff. Kbthompson (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not the victim in this case, but an observer. As an observer if I see someone being mugged I intervene, or report it to the fuzz - I do not pass by on the other side of the street and pretend it isn't happening. As for reactions I am genuinly confused as to what constitutes a calumny. If what DG has written is not a calumny and the admins are perfectly willing to allow it then how can repeating it add to the offence? If it is a calumny then why are you blaming me for reporting an offence? If I report that someone has written some graffiti on the wall in Whitechapel: "The admins are not the ones who won't be blamed for nuffink', who should be put in jail, Jack the Ripper or the person who saw and reported the graffiti? DG seems to be allowed a latitude of behavior that is allowed to no other editor on the wikipedia. He is dangerous: the wikipedia is littered with the corpses of his victims, and the admins putting their heads in the sand and whistling will not make him go away. Something needs to be done...as Lenin would say...Colin4C (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
And what if someone said something nice about you on their User page or mentioned that the weather is nice in Hawaii at this time? Would it be an offence to repeat it? I am not making anything up just transcribing what has been written. Colin4C (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
[EC] You can still be put in jail for shouting 'fire' in a theatre - just note Mr Sands is in the building; and leave it at that. You need to realise, that that particular ArbCom enforcement case is now closed. There never was any need for drama, now it's essentially a case of nothing to see here and move along. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the offence is to create an attack page, particularly one where someone explicitly requests that the people under attack, do not answer those attacks. That's not how things are done on wikipedia. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. If the Arb Com requires someone to amend his behaviour and he flagrantly doesn't, but repeats the same allegations which got him blocked on the same page how is the 'case closed'? You said above that what he has just written is a calumny and that I shouldn't spread it but are you now suggesting that it is fair comment??? If it is the latter than neither DG or myself can be blamed. If on the other hand it is a calumny then the wikipedia admins should do something about it. Also Arcayne and Elonka are still forbidden from replying to DG's slurs on his Talkpage. Its as if the Goulston Street Graffiti accusation was not only not washed off by the Commisioner but that the 'Juwes' were forbidden to write a reply underneath specifying that the accusation that they were not to blame for nothing was in fact false. Either Arcayne and Elonka should have a right of reply or the graffiti should be washed off. Colin4C (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not my problem (at the moment, on a bright sunny day, that I spent on the fantail of a boat) - if someone wants to file another complaint, then that's the correct place to discuss the matter. Not here. Kbthompson (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You're getting very Zen these days Kb...Or were they serving champagne on the boat? Hope your boater didn't blow off...Colin4C (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:ThreeMillsLock.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ThreeMillsLock.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.
If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.
The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!
Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.
Hi there, there is a red link on the disambiguation page at Commercial Street. The preference is for articles NOT to link to disambiguation pages, as this does not add anything to the article. I was principally concerned with sorting out references to Commercial Street (London), as it would appear that the former page was that article and it was moved to clear the way for (amongst others) the Commercial Street (Bangalore) article.
Should you wish, you are welcome to remove the redlink, or indeed, write the article - but it should not go to a disambiguation page - it should be made clear that the correct article is in fact missing. HTH. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, to build a theatre - there was a flurry of edits on it yesterday. If you can get me in, we could get some pix! Kbthompson (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As long as my name was taken in vain that's okay. Its when people start taking you seriously that I get worried. Then you have to attempt to live up to people's expectations - resulting in tears before and after bedtime, recriminations and emotional scenes, damage to the crockery etc etc. Colin4C (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi KB. Your edits on BH's talk page all but state that you consider me a troll. The "I wouldn't ascribe trollish notions to anyone" later on rings hollow after your recommendations. Frankly, other than you telling him he shouldn't try to out people, your comments will outright encourage him to ignore what I say. I'm frustrated that an admin who keeps lecturing about the need to put personal conflict behind continues to just encourage people to continue to express hatred toward other editors instead of taking the real steps necessary to resolve the problem. Instead of being friendly with Arcayne and BH when they make way over the top personal attacks, you need to explain to them that they are nowhere close to being justified in that behavior. You can chime in all the time about putting the past behind us, but in order for that to be genuine you need to take real actions toward that, not just parrot the same old lines while doing something different yourself.
I don't want to be in conflict with you. I don't want to be in conflict with anyone. I want the article to move forward. But if people want to try to prevent that, I'm not afraid of conflict either. And that's why people get upset. From day one Arcayne was just mad that I undid some of his edits and never let it go and has built it into an obsession. You tell BH about the woe is me, I am a victim ploy, but fail to mention that that's what Arcayne and BH are doing and that they need to stop. You need to break the cycle, and you can't do that by encouraging them after they made hugely inappropriate policy violations that probably would have gotten most anyone else banned.
Post here or my talk page if you want. I seriously want to solve this, as I always have. I will do whatever it takes to do so as long as the process is fair. But the gaming and tag teaming and outright disregard for most policies on display on that article is about a thousand miles from fair. DreamGuy (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I do make genuine attempts at being friendly with everyone, and yes that does include you. I don't regard discussing the issues that evidently caused BH such distress, in terms that allow him to progress his interpretation of the situation, as being a bad thing. I do consider some of your edits, edit summaries, article page contributions as unnecessarily confrontational, and I'll quite happily say so. There are editors who know which buttons to press on you - and you conversely know what buttons to press on them. Is that disruptive? Yes, do I want it to stop and serious progress be made on the article? Hell yes - and I've said so. I think, perhaps a part of the problem is that you consider these things a competition, in which points are scored - they're not.
I'd also point out that Arcayne has had cause to not be particularly happy with what he calls my 'indulgence' of you; or that BH is particularly happy with my exhortations for 'sweetness and light' - Colin recently described me as being 'unnecessarily zen'. You all have to take a wikipedia article for what it is - an article - not a battleground for existential truth, or even a personal crusade. The only way the article will get better is if people get down and co-operate. That means taking it on the nose occasionally and even people being big enough to say sorry when they do do something wrong. (... and I would hope that BH now understands that he did do something wrong).
I see nothing in my edit history as 'egging people on'; au contraire, I have always attempted to get them to calm down, reframe and contribute constructively - the next thing that happens is someone else entirely, puts in their twopennith and sets off the whole confrontation thing again. You may regard that as tag-teaming - but it's not, it's just the way a random group of people behave. Colin contributed to much the same articles as I did in my early days at wikipedia, but apart from him, I have no history with any of these people before JtR.
My advice to all of you is: if you don't want confrontation, don't create it. For example, I notice you, in a completely unrelated post on your page dragged in Elonka, for no apparent reason. Why, she has no relation to this current matter? It's that kind of thing which gets you a bad name, not me. You say that you're not afraid of conflict - let's just leave the argument as to who causes it - the issue is that any conflict is disruptive editing, regardless of who starts it. If someone makes a controversial edit, try to obtain consensus on the talk page; let them be the one that's not supported. I'd be very happy to see more completely independent admins observe that page to enforce compliance with policy. Kbthompson (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"the issue is that any conflict is disruptive editing" is a bizarre claim. Conflict will always be here, no matter what. Especially when the whole site is set up when people can show up of the street, or create new aliases at a whim. We don't set things up so that only skilled editors who understand objective writing can join in the first place. That means there are always going to be spammers, POV-pushers, and people with massive ego problems thinking that this iste is their personal playgrounds running around. Any real editor is going to have conflicts with these people, because their goals are fundamentally different from Wikipedia's goals. Conflict is unavoidable, and the existence of conflict is not disruptive editing in itself. Disruptive editors and nondisruptive editors will conflict, and blaming both sides is just completely shortsighted and guaranteed to never solve any problems... as clearly proven on the article in question. DreamGuy (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts on how to move JtR forward
My brain is swirling around a possible path forward on the JtR article. It would involve you and me acting in an admin capacity on the page, and would thus only work if all involved agree to it, which may very well never happen. But if we get all to agree to certain restrictions, and agree that you and I are free to use admin powers to enforce these agreed-upon restrictions, then it may be doable.
My basic thought is this.... A certain list of users, DG and his active detractors on that page, all agree to a zero tolerence restriction on JtR talk page comments and JtR edit comments about the *actions* of another editor on the list (or about the editor him/herself). The restriction would only apply to the JtR talk page itself (And edit comments on there and on the JtR page itself), and would impose no restrictions on fights that might flare up anywhere else. The intent is to make the JtR talk page and it's edit comments limited to only comments on content/edits, not comments on actions. A fight free area.
If one of them reverts the other, this would not prevent re-reverting, but the second editor would not be allowed to complain about the first revert via edit summary or the JtR talk page. If 3RR is broken, that can be reported to the proper place. No moe "take it to talk" edit comments either, as all involved are well aware that is what *should* happen.
If a new player drops in to attack DG, DG would not be limited from responding to the new player (I'm pretty sure he would never accept the restrictions without that caveot). But the others on the list could not gang in and assist the newcomer. The newcomer would then need to be dealt with in some way or another, or the situation could easily break down.
A "No addressing the other editor's actions" restriction is much, much more restrictive that a civility or NPA restriction, but is much, much more cut&dried as to when it's broken. No real judgement call over does something violate civility or NPA.
Editors accepting the restriction would be free to come to either of our talk pages to report "violations", but could not respond directly to violations on the JtR talk page, without themselves being in violation.
Violations would receive a 24 hour block. No escalating blocks on this, just 24 hours. And the two of us could/would hand out those blocks, despite prior involvements, as we would have explicit permission to do so from those on the list, or it would obviously never go into place. The hope is to never have to hand out blocks. If we quickly find that we are constantly handing out 24 hour blocks, the idea is failing, and it's back to the drawingboard.
Obviously the idea needs a lot of fleshing out. But do you see it as having even the slightest glimmer of hope of being workable? DG on my talk page is lamenting that nothing happens on the JtR page over various "violations", that you and I do nothing. So I'm wondering if, given agreement from all the principles, can we set things up so that you and I *can* do things to move things forward. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly inclined to agree to your modest proposal - and I think much more we could go 0RR on this one. Force them to achieve consensus on changing it back on the talk page. (I can already see various page watchers calculating when to make their most contentious changes ...). I already see new blood (pun intended) at that page - padillaH and wanderer57; the former seems to be on an admin training exercise (that's a joke), but they're both talking sense in terms of trying to reach an accommodation between the entrenched positions. We also have time zone coverage. I think probably knock it back to an 8 hour block, it's only to force a time out - and we don't really want them to count against people in any serious community banning down the road - probably note that in the comment field.
I've wondered about protecting the page and making people argue for change - but that has always seemed a step to far. DreamGuy's principle complaint has always been that people gang up on him - this goes some way to ensuring that doesn't happen and that he himself is on his best behaviour.
I'm away from 13-17 Aug (actually at the Gilbert & Sullivan festival [but don't tell anyone - I'd lose all credibility with the bloodthirsty mob - damn, outed]), further administrative input (another admin) would therefore be a good idea (also helps to stop any 'tie breaks' where we disagree on how close they danced to the edge - and knowing this lot, they will).
It could well work, I don't think any of them are bad people, they just manage to wind each other up the wrong way. No, it's a damn fine idea - almost as good as the cherry pie I had earlier ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne has agreed in theory to try to work this up. We need at *least* DG and Colin4C also on board if this is to have any chance of working, and DG would quite possibly want to add to that list. I really want agreements in theory from all three of the primary players before I put too much effort into trying to flesh this out. If DG or Colin are likely to reject it, there's really no point to spending the time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I note that DG has expressed reservations about my 'independence' in your latest discussion (and see Please stop lumping me (above), from the other side) - since they all seem equally pissed with me, I must have done something right. I'm quite happy to sit this one out if I'm an obstacle to the idea's progression. Kbthompson (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you a lawyer? See /notice (above) ... I'd KISS ... involve 3 admins - ie no ties in disputes, but initial penalties are at sole discretion of one admin. I'd also take it down to 8 hours, it's a time-out not a ban - if it can be enforced quickly after a violation, it just takes them out of one editing session. Otherwise, treatment of innocent bystanders - ie not protected by agreement - don't really want it discussed on the page, need to provide a process outside the article space. Kbthompson (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a computer programmer, not a lawyer. :) 3 admins sounds good. I really prefer 24 hours, as 8 seems to me to have potential for gaming. Make a violating edit just before heading for bed or work, and next be ready to edit after the 8 hours is up. It's an issue for debate though. This may all be moot, though, as DG appears to be ready to reject the idea. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Now there's a surprise, I didn't really think I was the obstacle. There's an interesting viewpoint in that recent statement - essentially the argument for an 'expert wiki' - and that might be the root of the problem. By contrast, the notion of wikipedia is anyone can edit it, and some approximation of 'existential truth' will emerge - it's not imposed, and it's also a didactic process for the editors. That gives me some pause for thought, it's probably not helpful in proposing any kind of solution, but it does give me a certain amount of sympathy for DG's position. I can only say what I learned here, and that is to trust other editors - the process isn't perfect, but it does actually work. As to the crime of computer programming, we'll discuss that some other time. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I made no argument for an "expert wiki" -- I pointed out that Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the opinions of the experts in the field, not people off the street. Editing is by people off the street, but the content is supposed to represent expert thought, not something cooked up by anyone with access to a web browser and who hates books. Arcayne has clearly stated an extreme hostility toward the experts in the field, saying in fact that there are none and that all the books were written by "crackpots" and "hacks", and has worked to remove reliable sources. BH and Colin have expressed similar thoughts, with BH's statements when he tried to out me suggesting that because he found a name published in the field as an expert on the topic that I must be him and therefore must be a "crackpot author". My point, which I've been trying unsuccessfully to make a zillion times now, is that editors on Wikipedia have to accept that the article is there to express the views of recognized experts on the topic (through WP:RS and WP:NPOV and etc.), not for people with a hostility toward the topic to put in whatever they want and remove info and sources they disagree with. Nobody has confronted the people taking this stance for more than a year. All it takes is other editors to very clearly point out that removing reliable sources and cited facts because you oppose them is a huge no no here. Before you try to come up with bizarre new procedures to try to move forward on the article, I just think the existing policies that have never been enforced or even articulated by anyone except me (which of course they refuse to follow) should actually be enforced. DreamGuy (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that particular argument is that they would state exactly the same; and that they were trying to uphold the same standards - excepting occasional lapses such as trying to 'out' you. I realise it is frustrating for you, it is equally frustrating for them. TexasAndroid has tried to put forward a solution that stops the sniping and allows progression on the article. There are a number of things that have to happen, the first is no more baiting, the second is no blame for former contretemps; and the last is that it stops and people treat each other with civility. The way forward is to explain why a change that you make is good, or a change that someone else makes is not good, without commenting on the person themselves. It is absurd - and frankly embarrassing that intelligent adults can't comport themselves with some element of dignity. Kbthompson (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Keep at it - and you'll be an admin - then you'll never get any editing of your own done. Reverting after a 3RR warning is beyond the pale, it's more of a block-by-four. Kbthompson (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I've only been here for three months.. I'll think about adminship next year. And I think she just fundamentally doesn't understand how WP works. Or doesn't care, I suppose. Prince of Canada t | c18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Be careful, it's addictive. I recently saw an old man with a beard in here, who hadn't returned to real life since 2001. A couple of thousand constructive edits and six months is the minimum - but probably best to get more experience under your belt before going for it. Seem to be doing well enough so far. Kbthompson (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh believe me, Wikiaddiction has me firmly in its grasp. And upon reviewing the diffs of the talk page... it looks like she needs a bit more of a spanking, having made repeated edits that a) deleted David Underdown's comments; b) had (deliberately?) misleading edit summaries (e.g. claiming 'grammar' while completely rewriting her comment); c) largely rewrote her initial comments after they had already been responded to. This seems a bit off. Prince of Canada t | c18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It crosses many noticeboards - ANI, CIVIL, etc ... from the username it would appear that we're dealing with a young wikipedean. I'd suggest a certain amount of patience and engagement. It won't necessarily work - there's actually a mentor programme somewhere, maybe we should suggest that. Kbthompson (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Gah, sorry... that probably seemed really rude of me. I meant that more as 'FYI', not 'man you're dumb, you should have seen all this already', which is how I fear it came across. Prince of Canada t | c21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Not at all - it was helpful to declining the unblock request. Was too lazy to dig up those myself =) –xeno (talk)21:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, y'all, different time zone - I was having my pasta twizzles with roast vegetables and a half-bottle - see, there is a real life after all. I seem to be superfluous here. She was warned, taken to task by two neutral editors and then persisted. Blocked for a remarkably short period of time, considering the various offences (listed above) - but heh, she seems to be both a young editor and a newbie. The three revert rule, and escalating scale of punishment is fairly straightforward. My best advice to the editor is to sit it out, read the instructions and come back a little wiser. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to your question here, the answer is yes. I'm sitting out and staying quiet. So have hope! Drink your gin & juice and know that at least somebody pays attention to you..8^D...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I believe Kb was referring to the discourse between AO & DG and someone whose initials are HB..with the irony that the previous victim changes roles. An earlier thread before all the "JTR" dab stuff broke out. You guys could have written an article with all that writing energy. My watchlist was interesting today to say the least. I'll probably sit that one out too..having more fun playing with SELinux, Apache, and xinetd config files. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, too much like work ... No it wasn't aimed at you BH - you are wise to take a break, but I - for one - will be glad to see you back. Just retain your cool and contribute to the article - not the editors. I take it you mean the Olympian efforts made by one to discombobulate the many. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I was speaking of the editing energies that broke out at this JTR dab page today. Put it in your watchlist to see the change of venue...a lesser known corner of the JTR experience. All of that writing because of three little letters. A whole article could have been written (POOF!) otherwise. My SELinux etc. comments were actually a bit-o-sarcasm. I've seen too many IP packets this week..and been at the commandline a bit much....I'm about ready to start writing personal letters with " #!/bin/bash " as the salutation. Is this what you do for a living? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh god, another one! I'd rather not know ...
What do I do, that is actually a difficult question. I've largely retired from the day job of robbing banks. At the very beginning, I told computers what to do by entering the commands on the front panel switches. Now, if I'm in that mode, I shout at people who run around waving their arms in the air (in surrender?). By some mysterious process, to which I really don't want to be a party, this is transferred directly to the computer memory and run.
In my other modes, I also teach people to shout at people to get computers to ... and have taught fundamental computing, software development, medical informatics, social science and more computer languages than the human ones I speak. I have a late-career interest in architecture and the planning process - particularly BREAM. My interest in theatre stems from a stint with the RSC and RNT; and I have yet to write my first masterpiece.
So, the answer is - like most people - as little as I can get away with, but people make so many demands on my time ... Kbthompson (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That'd be masquerading as an admin, no less (the punishment is death by hoojahwoodgie!). I think they'll be quiet for a while, after all they added the block notice to their own page. Kbthompson (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks a bit like a 'tribute' - a bit borderline and a fringe field, in any case. Having looked at some of the Ripper-stuff, we do have some barmier bios. I think the main thing that applies would probably be WP:PROF - look at the criteria there.
I am an employee of Light Opera Works, you can verify this by e-mailing my work account, if you wish. I am trying to update the account since a previous employee (Kraus) has posted information that only relates to his years as artistic director (1981-1999. While he was one of the founders, the history on Wikipedia is incomplete. In not wanting to offend him, instead of erasing his name from the article, I added information on the other major players in the company so as to have an equal spread. If a short bio of the current G.M. and artistic director are inappropriate then I request that the information pertaining only to our previous artistic director be deleted also.
I am happy to annotate anything needing annotation so we may post our entire history. Also, i would dutifully revise the history from our website if that is what it takes to be posted and viewed on Wikipedia. Most of all, I am interested in our wikipedia article being updated and accurate. Please let me know any further tips to make this possible.
--Mezzomealah (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said - on your talk page, it is not particularly appropriate for people associated with the company to edit the company's article. The way forward is to discuss your edits on the talk page of the article and obtain consensus from other editors on what should be in, or excluded from the article. It is not for me to say - wikipedia works by requesting and obtaining consensus from other editors. There already seem to be a number active at that article. Kbthompson (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Dates
Hi Kb. Well, one of the reasons I'm churning through quite a lot today is to get feedback from people like you. The autoformatting of dates is now deprecated, an important change in WP's style guidance. The edit summary should have provided the precise link. More information is available if you request it.
Did the script work OK? A technical problem has just come up, which will need to be fixed (year in blah, year-link pipes, which I now have to watch carefully for).
I'm finding a large proportion of articles that are messily or plain wrongly formatted, which is being fixed as I work.
That's why a script was developed, and is undergoing continual tweaking to get it perfect in operation. This spares the manual labour of removing square brackets; no one should have to do that. The script also detects inconsistencies and will fix them. In a few cases, I've had to think carefully about which format—US or international—to use, since that can cause a lot of trouble with local editors. But in most cases it's obvious (the Irish rock band with US dates, for example, and vice versa).
The script is readily available for editors to use, although people have to undertake to use it carefully, with human oversight. Tony(talk)14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Kb. UK-based articles need to be in international date format. You'll find the three simple guidelines at MOSNUM, except the non-anglophone country guideline is at present being renegotiated at MOSNUM talk, so there's a discussion tag on it. There's a notice here at FAC talk. And if needed, there's a capped information package available. Tony(talk)14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Yeah, I just saw the rubbish on the 2012 page, and that you'd blocked the main protagonist, it was that which reminded me I'd been meaning to take a quick look at the Chris Hoy page. David Underdown (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Motto of the day
Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.
When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.
If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold(t/a/c)01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you were so quick to intervene before, perhaps you would like to stick your bloody nose in to chastise Ssilvers for the baseless charge of anti-semitism he prepared to level against me. See his talkpage for the details. I do not single out Jews for dislike. (I dislike Ssilvers, but if he is a Jew it is news to me.) I dislike, and am rude to, and provoke, almost everyone. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see he appears to have kept a record of edits in which you have been uncivil to him. This may be a little paranoid, but if you continue to be rude to him, it would seem that he is likely to complain to the wikiquette notice board. My little chat with you was supposed to help you realise that adopting a provocative stance - even even-handed rudeness - is likely to get you banned from wikipedia. I would prefer to forestall such unpleasantness, and yes, there was an element of formal warning in it. Another admin noting such behaviour might block first and talk afterwards.
Wikipedia is a strange community, one embracing the very young and the very old. The robust and the delicate. It only works through a certain level of basic politeness. It remains best to comment on content and not other editors. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kb, I noticed you put up a link on your user page regarding UK copyright notice. Can you look at the "scene" (edit history) on the Annie Chapman page and offer advice. It looks okay to me and Jack filed the proper notice at the Commons from what I can see.
It looks fine to me. Self made, by Jack - no probs. I'd probably go for a commons-share-alike-attribution license. Just means that they can use it, but have to say who made it.
No, I'm in London, both my parents had a serious illness that required my presence here. They subsequently died from said problem - old age ... Our good friends in the US don't want to let me back in - willy nilly - because I spent so long there, I am entitled to citizenship. The matter could be solved by the application of money (the US gov - go figure!), but is complicated by the addition of a post-US residency Welsh wife ... (whose sister is a US citizen, by virtue of being born in Boston when her father was lecturing at MIT).
I've actually spent quite a lot of time around Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham, and am particularly fond of the Outer Banks - especially Ocracoke - where the craic is good. I must say though, the beer is terrible, and I had some Jura earlier - so, I respectfully dedicate that to both the virtual toast and island communities everywhere. Cheers! Kbthompson (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Terribly sorry about your folks... good that the situation ended up with you near to share time with them. My folks have the same problem..I still have them if only for a short time..treasures.
Hey, we like Welsh, too! She's welcome over here (just don't let her on the Wiki, those Welsh like putting double "LL"s and lots of extra "Y"s & "W"s into words). Just time your visit to the U.S. when your wife is nine months pregnant and when Junior is born, both of you will be granted citizenship. Simple.
Bad beer? You must not have found the good stuff..Greenshield's in Raleigh, Weeping Radish at Manteo, Spring Garden in Greensboro, Old Hickory Brewpub in Hickory, Cottonwood in Boone...the list of good brewpubs is long. Maybe you were in need of a good tour guide. I've lived in Charlotte while at University, lived at Myrtle Beach, and back home now near Winston...all areas being beautiful imho. I'm an inactive but well-experienced homebrewer and usually a hophead. Have been known to drive some distances for good cask-conditioned ale and do pubcrawls. I'm returning your Jura toast with a Newcastle Brown Ale btw. Cheers. I'm all out of Glen Morangie. My offer stands open for you & your wife (even if she is Welsh ;)) if you happen to get back this way. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Parents are very transient things, and it's not until they've gone - or, like my father suffered the last few years of his life as an aphasic - that while you spent a lot of time together, you never actually really talked about things - and then, suddenly, it's too late. When my great-aunt died (at 106), I was asked to give a press interview, in which I found out more about her life from the reporter, than information I was able to give him.
Like the American Army, I am always prepositioned - my daughter is a US-citizen and currently at Harvard. My impression is that it doesn't help my comings and goings. A friend recently got his citizenship, three years, after application - and he'd been there since 1979.
Yes, the explosion of micro-breweries hadn't really happened the last time I was over there. There were a couple in NYC and a few in Boston, but they've become quite widespread since. In the UK, it's gone the other way - with smaller brews being bought up, and often production being moved to Burton-on-Trent - with different water and yeast strains - so, not really the same brew at all. This has lead to the misapplication of an old phrase going for a Burton. There are some micro-brews in the UK, but there's a strange quirk of excise law that means when production hits a certain level, full duties kick in - and that normally kills 'em off. The recent introduction of anti-smoking laws, and less money being around has lead to pubs closing at their fastest rate ever (here).
Two brews worth travelling for: Orkney's Dark Isle, and Shetland's aptly named Skullsplitter .... Up until recently I received regular 'care' packages of Woodford Reserve and Maker's Mark, but that seems to have stopped for the moment. My main tipple is anything - as long as it's from Islay. Kbthompson (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The move for microbreweries to Burton is odd in my mind. The first thing I think of is the Burton water salts which can be bought for homebrewers. In flavor, Burton automatically brings to mind Ole Peculiar which I can enjoy for what it is but I can imagine what you are talking about..throwing the traditional recipes off. I've been under the impression that lagers have been growing in popularity in the UK at the expense of the hometown ales. Personally, I think ales are more flavorful and it is easier to brew. I prefer/brewed British & Belgian ales. Do they allow you to brew in the UK? I haven't had Woodford Reserve but Maker's Mark is excellent. Interesting sidenote, in the recent election campaigning during May, Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the Maker's Mark plant and dipped bottles in the red wax. Link to video here...looks like she was saving the bottles for Bill. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
More small local breweries, rather than micro-brews. There are a few here, but it never really took off - couple of pubs in London used to brew out the back - not sure they still do that. Old Peculiar is brewed by Theakstons in Masham - and, I think, never went for a Burton - although it's now owned by S&N (a mega-brewery). I prefer the member of the family who didn't sell out - Black Sheep Brewery. Their Riggwelter is particularly nice. At the University bar, we got bored with cleaning up the mess, so people were only allowed Old Peculiar by the half (until they got used to it). In those days we also had the Tadcaster dash - reckless driving from closing time in Leeds to beat last orders in Tadcaster. Kbthompson (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
In my wife's defence, she was born in London - but moved to Wales at an early age, as her father now decided to lecture at Aberystwyth - and if you can spell that properly at this time of night, then you're a better man than me ... If there's any more anti-Welsh sentiment, I'll set the Hedlu on you ... Yaky-da Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
London categories for place
Hi Kb,
As you know your way round many of the London articles, I thought you might be interested to know that I am so fed up now with the poor way that London categories are named, that I am attempting to correct them. I would appreciate you casting your eyes over this if you feel so inclined, in case a have included a faux pass or two.
You can view my proposed changes here: [8]
At present, abbreviating the borough cats to the names of the towns in which the mayor sits is not only wrong but just confuses people; neighbourhoods more so, because in England (and especially in crowed London) the use of the word changes with context. We need need in an encyclopaedia to have inflexible term for something that possess defined boundaries for the area covered in the article, -borough meets this requirement.
These latter two problems also badly affects Wikimidia Commons. Nine out of ten photographs of London that get uploaded, don't get a category place name any more - it is just too mystifying for contributors (as you may know, Wikimedia Commons uses the English Wikipedia as its guide regarding the naming of categories). It also makes searching for good images a chore. I wasted several hours last week trying to explain to a group of three people who were visiting (and who's mother tongue is not English), how to choose the right category for images which would place them geographically and came to realize, that as things are, it is a complete nonsense when it comes to the London region. Obviously too, without these cats it is impossible in practice to review image for any given locality in a WC gallery.--Aspro (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
On 1 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oxford Music Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
By the way, (a stage reconstruction of) the Oxford Music Hall features in the film Champagne Charlie, which I have just watched. Also featured is Gattis-in-the-Road plus a special guest star appearance of Signor Gatti himself plus a (presumably) fictitious music hall called 'The Mogador'. Colin4C (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the Hugh Grant version? Should we note it in the article? Was the song "Champagne Charle" introduced at the Oxford? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Not the Hugh Grant film, but the 1944 film, which I see that Kb has just enlarged with the above info and more. By the way, I have a horrible feeling that this article: Champagne Charlie (play) - about a supposed play of the same name, which the film was supposedly based on, is completely fictitious: The credits of the film mention no such play and all the internet refs are mirrors of the wikipedia article. Colin4C (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be right, the text is very confused. I dropped a note on the talk page. Maybe should just stick it up AfD ... Kbthompson (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I put up a stub for this Shakesperean actor based on his dnb entry, but he's out of my area of interest. Feel free to expand if the spirit takes you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Kb. Check out User:Rachypie. This account has only been used for vandalism since April. Hope all is well! -- Ssilvers (talk)
OKey, dOKey. I appear to be momentarily back on-line. Apologies for not being able to deal with things earlier. In my abscence, you can bring up three times warned vandals at WP:AIV. An admin there will block 'em. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi There! I'm just about to repair the results of an edit that you made, back in June. I'm telling you about it, so that you can go the rounds of other similar edits and fix them if necessary.
When you insert a text box, it pushes down any othe box or picture that happens to be below it. Pictures are most usually located imediately beneath a sub-heading, and to the right side of the page. When a picture gets forced down the page by a text box (or the insertion of another picture that doesn't fit), then the effect is to orphan the heading from the text that follows it. In other words, it creates a gap between the heading and its text. If a page is viewed on a wide screen, then the gap can be 3 or 4 inches deep, and generally occurs in the first section immediately after the intro. If your computer happens to have a narrow screen the the effect is minimilised, or may not be a problem at all. But if you notice (on a narrow screen) that a pic is fitting snugly under the box you have just inserted, then you can be sure it will cause a problem on any screen of wider format.
Please don't go off and leave any box without using "Show preview", and if you see a gap, fix it, because if you don't then it may stay there. making the layout of the page look ghastly, for the next 3 or 4 months until someone like me recognises what has caused the problem.
Please don't be offended. I am trying to raise awareness of this common formatting problem by leaving the same message for every other editor that I find who has created gaps like this by inserting boxes (or pics that won't fit). I will fix the problem by juggling the positions of the pictures, but if you go back through the history, to your edits, you will see the problem. Amandajm (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I managed to get online yesterday - and that was the first thing I saw. While I cannot defend the undefendable, it seems to me that wikipedia is not a place for people to express their unconsidered anger. It would probably be appropriate to update the article with some of the controversy; but to my mind it appears there is still a paupacity of fact and a surfeit of blame! Kbthompson (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone tried to add dates to the name changes - should be explained in text - and our Tim - took exception to Vanburgh being described as the architect. The infobox explains that that field is for the first building, and subsequent rebuildings are listed below with architect. Kbthompson (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi KBT - I saw your note on the bridge infobox to which I have already added a few fields. Listed status would be a useful addition - would "Heritage status" be a suitable international field name? Regards Motmit (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I was careful to use a term that would have some meaning for international users. It should be a freetext field - US users can then insert a BR and add the NRHP number beneath. I think the text for England and Wales should read "Grade II listed structure"; or just "Grade II" - as an example - linking to listed buildings (which is actually "listed buildings and structures". I think that should do it. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure I used to know how to do this but can't for the life of me remember - if yo want to order category pages listing people, how do you order by surname rather than the default first name? Sorry to trouble you. hjuk (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Used to be use {{DEFAULTSORT}}, now {{Lifetime}} seems to be the recommended way. It replaces template Defaultsort; and categories birth and death - miss out death, or enter living for people who are still alive. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Locks on the Hertford Union Canal, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That's been sorted, it was determined an invalid CSD; removing it also removed the super-cats. Should someone wish to proceed with the deletion, then the super-cats will need to be added into each of the articles - a far less elegant solution! Kbthompson (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've beefed this up. Kindly review and apply your theatrical and historical expertise. Happy holidays to you and your lovely wife. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It will have to be later, dude ... I have a Canadian expert in language analysis to see tomorrow - and a carol service. This Xmas thing kinda creeps up on you. The very best of wishes to you and your soprano ... and may all your comic villains for 2009 fit perfectly in your vocal range. For now, I shall cuddle up to the missus and pray for the return of the Sun - so cruelly stolen by the Sun-eater. Kbthompson (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all, leaving greetings and nice words. I have been in the frozen wastes of Nottingham, checking on an outbreak of multiple family fecundity and escaping builders. Your kind thoughts are reciprocated, all the best. Kbthompson (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Revisiting the same issue
Recently, I noted this edit summary in the article for Scarlet Pimpernel, which is the most recent of a total of three edits in entirety to the article. My presence in the same article predates the other user by over six months. A quick survey of the user in question's talk page (as well as the user-deleted bits) would seem to suggest a return to problematic edits. My most recent post there is an attempt to stem this issue, but considering the user's history, I am not holding out any hope. I am notifying you as an administrator who is also familiar with the issue of a problem that I think is resurfacing. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I got back earlier today, and mainly dealt with a backlog of e-mails, so tomorrow - I do sympathise. Just do your best not to let it make you angry. In general - on wiki, it is my very familiarity with the case that would disqualify me from taking action - as an admin - against the principal in the issue. The question then - with such a widespread pattern of abusive behaviour, is what admin remains uninvolved?
Still thinking about it. I think the correct place to take up the issue is at ArbCom, as his behaviour continues to substantively ignore the editing restrictions placed upon him. There is little point in reiterating those restrictions, or placing more for him to ignore. The question is do his contributions to the project outweigh the negative atmosphere he creates? I would put my threepennith in on such a discussion. I would hope that he could find it within himself to engage constructively with other editors; something he seems unable to do in an on-line context. I have no problem with people arguing their point forcefully, it's the associated incivility I have a problem with. Kbthompson (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Quite right to discourage Ssilvers from going for admin duties, unlike your splendid self. I need him on permanent call to Wikify my discursive ramblings. Best wishes, Tim. Tim riley (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It's actually a plot by wikipedia; the more proficient you get at writing articles, the more they involve you in procedures that give you no time to ... eh ... write articles. Anyway, I'm too busy anyway - for the moment. Happy New Year - and all the best. Kbthompson (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, KB. Your ALT hook suggestion is much better. Tim: have wikified your additions to Clarke. Does his Sorcerer overture survive, or was it rewritten by someone? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Theatre Society
I gave this a copy edit and embedded some questions for you. I think it's a pretty good description of the Society. I also gave Grein a quick copy edit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested to know that there's a one-off screening, with on-stage guests, of a documentary about KC at the Riverside on Wed 11 February. Promises to be an evening to remember. This has just gone up on the Riverside website: Antic Visionary Regards Wingspeed (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that - he was a hero of mine; from the Illuminati to his bizarre attempts to teach the world Esperanto (one person at a time). I had the privilege to attend the Warp - and like many others flake out in the gallery half way through - with a number of the cast. Later, I spent an entire day trying to find out where an anniversary revival of the Illuminati was being performed to find out (too late) it was being performed virtually on my doorstep. Bizarrely, I was introduced to the work of Ken, when I (as 18 year old) was given a lift from London to Leeds by Chris Langham - who spent the entire trip producing dollar bills and other evidence of the existence of the Illuminati - on his way to a stage show in Newcastle. It was like a four hour, mini-Illuminatii. (That exasperated Langham's manager - who thought perhaps, he should rather keep his attention on driving).
I also have my individual experiences of Vanuatu and Trevor Nunn, they are probably best left until such a time as I would have the opportunity to meet you!
The last time I tried to go to the Riverside, it was to see a friend of mine 'juggle tables' - we arrived late, after a gargantuan journey across London and were refused entry. It's something I would like to do, so yes, thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, it seemed to be a major ommission from the cannon. It seems little substantive is actually known about it - the archive is held at Harvard; who the hell's going there for an obscure British theatre! Kbthompson (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, someone's blocked them. Hoaxes tend to be quite difficult - someone has to spot them first! I got one the other day - but it seems to be a current ip-wiki sport; trying to subvert articles without anyone realising. Generally, they're coming in on temp ip addresses, they change a few dates, name, etc - get blocked and they'll be back in a few days - with another spliff and a new unblocked ip. Sorry. Kbthompson (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.
Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.
Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Archiving Talk pages
Hi KB sorry to bother you. I see your "busy IRL" sign, and there is absolutely no rush.
I was looking at Talk:Muswell Hill, which I see you've edited recently, and noting that it is getting long and straggly and possibly needs a trip to the barber's. For example all the debate about the "Gaudi" shop front is just not relevant now, though I suppose it might be preserved as an example of wp editors at their very best getting on wholeheartedly with the job of producing an NPOV encyclopaedia (goak here). Other edits are similarly out of date, whereas yet others are more current and still needed.
I wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes but I do wonder if the page could be trimmed back, now or at some future point (when it reaches a certain length??) to make it a bit more current and useful. Is there a guideline on this - how to do it, when to do it, how not to cheese others off with doing it, etc? I am not in this case tempted to be bold and just hack it merrily around as I am quite sure that would be tactless and foolish if I don't know what I'm doing. So any guidance towards which you can point me would be greatly appreciated.
But, like I say, no rush. It's been growing slowly for years and no-one will die if nothing is done for more years ...
PS As for your comment on the Characters section - sheesh, yes, it's hopeless and a horrid mess. I wish I had the knowledge/skills/nerve to tackle it... I don't! :)
Give me ten minutes, then have a go. I've got something to do in RL; but back later. I just thought a bit of reorganisation was in order to try to make sense of it. There was a partisan note before - particularly about A&E! Kbthompson (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think A&E closure date is wrong; The London had a big expansion of it's A&E about that time; and I think Barts remained open until that was complete. Over to you for a while - I think the structures there now ... Kbthompson (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Grade A listed churches in London, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
[10] You don't have to beleive this, but I had never seen that list of facts before. However it was almost verbatim. I folowed the link expecting to find a mirror site, but no...... They couldn't be....surely not, not The Palace copying Wikipedia? :-) Giano (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, they could ... I struck the note out in the FAR. I'm sorry you're getting a tough time over this - but, sometimes, it's best to just get on with it and sort it out. If I get some more time, I'll have another go - most of the listed issues should be quite easy to resolve and the whole matter put to bed. Good luck. Kbthompson (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using
{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}
If you get a chance, can you have a look over the newly-written Noel Park and see if you can spot anything that ought/ought not to be there? This started out as a fairly bog-standard entry in my "Moselle valley" series, to plug the gap between Wood Green Shopping City and Broadwater Farm, but in the process has grown into a sprawling epic on the history of the Artizans Company, Victorian social planning, and the impact of changing transport links on urban development. DavidCane has gone over it from the architecture perspective, Simply South from the transport side and assorted FAC people (notably Malleus Fatuorum) from the MOS and readability angle, but it probably could do with someone giving it a once-over from the "as a part of London" angle as well before it gets turned loose on FAC. Thanks! – iridescent12:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MB-hampstead.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, that was fun - somebody changed {{non-free symbol}} and/or {{non-free logo}} to require a fair use template - most had a justification anyway - but not in the template; thereby requiring me to check all the local authorities abolished in 1965! Kbthompson (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
I have noticed that you have addressed the user 'Alec Rowe' several times in the recent past. I have just spent a great deal of time cleaning up, and essentially re-writing an article that Mr. Rowe had turned into an incoherent mess. The page was in shambles and consisted of rambling opinion, numerous misspellings, extensive grammatical errors, irrelevant information, complete non-sequiters, a 'by Alex Rowe' byline, odd sources cited, and his own copyright.
My question, and I do actually have one, is simple. Is there any Wikipedia protocol to remove such an editor?
I honestly do believe that this person is contributing in good faith, but given his atrocious writing skills, apparent rambling thought process and total lack of understanding of Wikipedia protocol, I feel that his contributions end up having the same effect of intentional vandalism.
Since you have dealt with this person in the past, I thought I would contact you in order to hear your opinion on this.
Hi, there's been no contribution since 9 February. I also assumed good-faith and tried to engage the editor; guiding them to an understanding of wikipedia. It's important not to WP:BITE - but equally not to allow damage to the encyclopaedia. Some people actually 'get it' quite quickly, and become careful and active contributors. In this case, it appears not. I did the best I could with the area I knew about and got Disgust at you deleting important knowledge about the 'Empire' Theatres of which Sir Oswald Stoll was a founder); for my pains. The worst thing to have to deal with is claimed 'secret knowledge' of 'unpublished facts' - trying to explain that can be tricky.
If the user comes back; and hasn't learned anything, then I would block them indefinitely - although if there was any evidence they'd actually read the FAQ, I might be persuaded to give them another chance. Otherwise, I think the only thing that can be done is to request help at WP:ANI. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Pub
I get the point of removing the redirect but is it necessary (or useful) for every instance of the word pub to read "public house? It seems excessively formal. pablohablo.16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, point taken - but 'pub' is actually an unencyclopaedic abbreviation - and of relatively recent introduction, so in principle should be replaced - an encyclopaedia is formal and uses formal language. The scale of replacement suggests it may be a job for a 'bot'.
I left AWB looking at Liza of Lambeth - which currently reads "... and stays a little longer to comfort Sally is late for her meeting with Jim in front of a nearby pub." Personally, I'm not sure Somerset Maugham would ever be so informal, and I suspect it is an anachronism for the period. I'll leave the task for a week and see if anyone else turns up to comment. Thanks for taking the time to leave a message, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Kbthompson (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1800 J. PLUMTRE Jrnl. 22 July in I. Ousby James Plumtre's Brit. (1992) 201 Mr. T. slept at the pub.
1859 J. C. HOTTEN Dict. Slang 78 Pub, or Public, a public house.
1865 E. C. CLAYTON Cruel Fortune II. 155 The wealthy proprietress of a busy ‘pub’.
1884 Good Words June 400/1 He had done twelve months for crippling for life the ‘chucker-out’ of one of these pubs.
1893 K. MACKAY Out Back (ed. 2) II. v. 188 It's Molloy's fault... He got tanked at the pub last night.
so it's not an anachronism, but you would have to look at the actual text to see if Willy wrote "pub" or "public house"! pablohablo.17:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ta, note the marker 'slang' and - in Chambers (which I was hitting while you were hitting OED) - 'colloquialism' - do they have any place in an encyclopaedia? Kbthompson (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm kind of thinking yes - I think that "pub" is the de facto term nowadays outside of the magistrate's courts! I don't think "public house" gets used much in the English-speaking world at all, and I think that usage trumps the formal term. But I realise that this is just my opinion. What would Eric Partridge make of it I wonder (scuttles off to blow dust off copy of old book).
… having looked at Lisa of Lambeth it seems that Maugham was quite happy with the word - "They drew up before the pub entrance" and "'Oh, I only said thet not ter go inter the pub with them.'" (Ch 5), "At the pub door she drew back." (Ch 7) and others He also uses "public-house", but not in dialogue. pablohablo.00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, OK, I admit it - I'm just an old fogey ... the diminutive grates on my grey ears. A la they are a popular beat combo, mi'lord ...
No, I'm not going to mount a one-person crusade in defence of the English language, so I shall cease and desist - but I, perhaps can wonder, what an international audience makes of the use of slang and colloquialism ... Kbthompson (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I should admit, that I've been searching both the manual of style and various on-line style guides for guidance. There appears to be none on this particular issue; The Guardian for instance, that bastion of liberal values (and all I hold dear) will use 'public house' in the news pages, but quite happily 'go down the pub' in G2 and the magazine pages. The Chicago book says something like don't use colloquialisms in formal style - but equally that it would be a poor dictionary that didn't mention "ain't". Kbthompson (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I got sidetracked on the whole Somerset Maugham thing. I think if it were a purely English (as she is spoke in Britain) encyclopædia then "public house" would be the way to go. I beieve (and I have no evidence for this) that in other countries "pub" would be more widely understood, if not the official term. Even in India (where English is often more formal than it is here) recent news articles (in the Times of India no less) referred to "pubs". I don't know if this is worth putting to whatever noticeboard there is here for style questions (there probably is one). Must sleep now, enough excitement for one day! pablohablo.01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I am genuinely surprised that usage of the word occurs so early in the lexicon. Possibly there is a case for taking it to a 'board' - but I looked and can't find one ready to give advice on the use of language - maybe the village pump ... The widespread use abroad of 'pub' seems more of a branding exercise to attract ex-pats and tourists (I know, I have been both). Perhaps of more concern, is the rate at which they are disappearing - closed by a combination of high beer prices and the smoking ban ... good night. Kbthompson (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2 things
Hello, KB. How are you doing? Two items of interest:
Point 1: Commented there - they need to be given a chance to prove notability. It could go to WP:AFD; the process there would knock it on the head, or provide some incentive to resurrect the article.
Point 2: Luverly, I shall liaise with my better half on the arrangements. I think a nice B&B close to the theatre would be better than the YH in the sticks this time (although it was a very nice YH). Kbthompson (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be there from 2 August, through Friday night 14 August (leaving Saturday morning). Check with Tim on his schedule - he's taking a few days, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at Pinafore - my concerns would be the images bleeding between sections. I also suspect you of fiddling image size - that's probably OK for GA, but is a no-no for FA. Otherwise, I'd be tempted to try for FA, rather than GA; it's already at that level. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks re Pinafore: I moved the images around a little and reduced a couple. What do you mean by "fiddling image size"? Does what I did solve your issues, at least for now? If not, what do you have in mind? I imagine that, before it achieves FA, there will be a number of changes in the images used, as Shoemaker always comes up with more images. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, specifying a lead px size is fine; but there's a 350px pinafore pic in the body. It's supposed to be a no-no ... Kbthompson (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. My understanding is that if the image has a wide aspect ratio, it's OK. But I'm not too worried about it - if commenters at the reviews agree that it's no good, we'll change it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, back at Sir Noel, I'd be grateful if you'd ponder on the admissibility of the only remaining website at issue on the review discussion page. It seems to me that given the roster of impressive institutions and sites that link to it [11], its credentials are beyond question, but then I'm parti pris. Glad of your wise counsel. Tim riley (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; I've been up to my ears in NT issues - mainly, heh, you b*stards, get off my land ... it is a damn fine article. Kbthompson (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
hi mate - i've noticed you've taken over the maintenance of the London Portal. I just wanted to say thank you - I created the portal about 2 (maybe even 3) years back and put in place all the "vote for selected articles/pictures" paraphernalia that is there now, but unfortunately was totally unable to maintain upkeep of it once I went to university. It is good to see someone has finally taken of the reigns - good work, and thanks. DJR (T) 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Robin van Persie
Cheers for that. I just assumed that moving the page back and leaving the history caused less damage than leaving it at the offensive title. I've had my eye on the user you blocked anyway because they were largely just vandalising anyway. I see no reason why an unblock would be needed. Thanks again! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
There are some things that should never be seen in the history of the page. You did the right thing - but you may need to advise an admin if this sort of thing occurs again. I've protected the target, so the page cannot be recreated there. Kbthompson (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do in future. Actually, while I'm here. As a fellow Brit can I ask your opinion on this article? I think the deletion debate is a side issue of a larger content/POV debate but I'd really appreciate another set of eyes to give it the once over. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to report the incident at WP:BLPLOG; somebody probably needs to review my actions. I had a quick look at that page. There is always going to be a lot of debate over the POV on that issue; and attaining a NPOV is a minefield. I think I'd put myself in the 'keep', but 'deal with the issue sensitively' camp. There is a lot of synthesis in the current article - it reads more like an essay. There's been some improvements, but it has a long way to go.
I also 'page move protected' van Persie for three months. Let me know if that causes any subsidiary problems; if there's too much IP vandalism, then I'll protect against new and unreg'd users. Kbthompson (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe all the issues have been addressed. Would you kindly comment further or vote at the FAC? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with the article along the way. I am so proud of our little Tim on his first FA project. He totally drove the project, and dozens of the Noel Coward play articles and related bios have also benefitted. We should have some kind of Wiki-celebration! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I made a few (well quite a few) changes to Hampton Court to improve the layout and make it easier and clearer to expand; revert if you don't like, but that is the sort of format I would follow if I were expanding it. The ghost section had to go - it's trivia and unreferenced unencyclopedic trivia as well. I suspect the new lead image is of dodgy provenance, which is a pity, but commons have not spotted it, so it may as well stay until something better turns up, lead images of buildings facing away from the text are always a turn off, that was the best I could find. No probs if you revert. Giano (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time - I'll have a look over the next few days, when I have the time. Please do take it easy, when wikipedia gets on top of you; everything seems out of kilter and it's very easy to get into arguments over very little. Much better to make your own cup of tea, than stew in someone else's storm in a tea cup. All the best. Kbthompson (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It truly is a bizarre place; a construct in the head. Few of us have ever met each other; and sometimes the communications fail. If that happens, it's best just to move on and find something more satisfying to do! I don't believe people really recover from wikipedia. Still, I've got a three week break in the real world to look forward to soon ... Kbthompson (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The ideal training ground for survival on Wikipedia is 6 years in a isolated Jesuit boarding school, after that Wikipedia is a doddle. My advice to anyone here is the same as there - stick up for yourself, always hit back harder than you are hit, know you facts inside and out and then just pray like crazy. Giano (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That's just a recipe for both sides to go nuclear - better to find what you do agree on and then move forward from there. Some people you will never agree with; it is almost always better for your own sanity to walk away (probably best not to turn your back on them through ...). There are far too many feuds on wikipedia; usually arising from quite petty incidents that people will just not let go. It might be temporarily cathartic to have a shouting match; but it doesn't advance the work, just seems to store up trouble for later, and pisses off the uninvolved. Ah, the power of prayer ... All the best Kbthompson (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Note to self - missing markets
Mansion House, London build on site of Old Stocks market, circa 1723. Fleet culverted and Fleet market built about same time to replace Old Stocks; about 20 years later Fleet moved to Farringdon market to build Farringdon Rd. Farringdon market closed and moved to West Smithfield, as fruit and veg - the buildings under threat.
(Basically process of modernisation of City's open air medieval marketplaces; like Leadenhall Market - that could do with attention - market is 19th century repl, of a shambles market - medieval houses with open shops at ground floor). Kbthompson (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
London Transport DYK
Do you know how to revive this? When i redid the newsletter a little while ago, i had the intention to inclue the DYK from the London Transport Portal. It does include this but i think some fresh gacts are needed. Simply south (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You've updated it with your own stuff - which is what's happening at P:L at the moment. Once people get the idea that it is working; maybe that will drag a few contributions in. We could institute 'thank spam' along of the DYK variety - A fact you proposed from Article appeared on the London (Transport) Portal on; and do the same for the articles. The first provides a(n admittedly minor) reward, and the second advertises that it's being done.
I don't think I can make the next one, but there is also a regular London meetup. Going there and singing the praises of the portals and asking people to contribute could work. (The last one I went to, there were about 20 people there).
I'm going to try to roll out the changes to the London Portal, few at a time. Last month updated showcase article, picture and quote; next month add the biography (although it seems to be yours from this month!) and changed DYK. We went mad scheduling so far in advance; but needed to show something happening. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the London Meetup for seriously dedicated Wikipedia users or is it more enthusiasts? In any case i haven't been to a meetup before and cannot make this Easter one.
Separately, the DYK was not updated with my own stuff, it was taken from some years old suggestions that hadn't been implemented yet. Thanks for the suggestion though. Maybe I'll send a note to all WP:LT users asking if anyone is interested in suggesting facts (or should i call them gacts thanks to the typo?!) Simply south (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Mind the gacts ... no problem; the sense is to get the ball rolling. We didn't even have the 'London Portal' on the WPLon banner clutter - I added it. The meetup is for anyone, it's primarily a social gathering. If I'm missing a trick anywhere - pls feel free to clue me; or just dive in. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you add anything to this new article? I wasn't able to find reliable dates of birth and death. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
FreeBMD doesn't have a record between 1890-1910, in that name; I suspect it wasn't her birth name. If she attended Guildhall, then appeared on stage; I suspect a birth date between 1894-1896. I'd get Tim to hit the library for a Times obit around the year of her death. That might provide more clues. Kbthompson (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I've got "Lilian Sylvia Cecil" - Birth: Quarter Mar 1898 - Holborn, London, Middlesex - right place, near enough name. Means she was born between later Dec 1897 and early Mar, following year. It's a possible. Kbthompson (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no Times obit. I added a footnote to the article with the Lilian Sylvia Cecil info. Take a look. I think 1898 sounds right. Stone says that she was in a "Juvenile" production in 1914, so if she was 16 years old, that makes sense. She couldn't be much older, by that logic. BTW, Stone does not say that she *graduated* from Guildhall -- perhaps she attended for a couple of years and then got the offer from D'Oyly Carte to do principal roles.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Bit of a tangle - plenty of performance details; nothing on her personal life. No marriage, no children, no burial recorded (online, anyway). On the other hand, at 77 she got a warm reception at the centenary, so very well known. Perplexing, and this in a world of collectors and memorabilia. Kbthompson (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I am adding this new category as it is surviving Wren churches. The existing categories are "all Wren London churches", and "London churches that have been built after the Great Fire and subsequentially demolished" (and these would be mostly Wren, I think). Nearly half of the Wren churches HAVE been demolished, and there is no existing list of the surviving ones. This is an important list, as people interested in Wren might want to go and see them, such as tourists, or historians, or architecture students. You can find what's there by searching through the whole list category, but it takes a lot of time! I've had to do this, which is why I want to set up a list to stop anyone else having to do it.
Your point is taken about London or Greater London. I'm going to set up the category properly (give us a chance - I only started this a few minutes ago!) I'm new to this game, so wanted to get all the churches in the category together before making a proper category. At the start of the category, I'm going to specify which churches are in the City, and which in Greater London. There is also one that has moved to America! I'm also going to specify which are no longer complete - there are several towers without the rest of the church. That is why I called the section "Surviving Christopher Wren London churches" meaning "London Churches built by Wren and still existing, even if not still churches, complete buildings, or indeed even within London".
Hope this meets with your approval! As I said, I'm new at this game. I've made a few other changes - there were about 4 churches missing from the complete list of Wren churches, and I think that the number of churches in the Christopher Wren website was wrong (although it's hard to tell what should and should not be included - but the original number must have been wrong).
Since there will be no more made by Wren; perhaps you could consider a more useful expenditure of your time in creating such a list - with a name like List of Christopher Wren Churches in London. Such a list could be sub-divided by City of London (the majority); other locations (few exceptions); and each church could be listed by construction date - demolition (if appropriate). An example of a list like that is List of churches destroyed in the Great Fire of London and not rebuilt. I am worried that you're doing an enormous amount of work that may be quickly undone - I have seen many of these things go to CFD and the result be 'listify'. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I wondered about that. But there is already a category of destroyed Wren churches (in effect) and all Wren churches, so it seemed logical to have one of surviving churches. I didn't want to replicate the existing category of all Wren churches with a list of all Wren churches. I was trying to go with what had been done in the past. It won't be too much effort wasted if people delete it as I'd made this list for my own use. I know that there is a replication of a category and a list of destroyed churches. Is it reasonable to put up a list as well as a category? Also, quite apart from anything else, it seemed easier to make a category than a list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Generally speaking, lists are to be preferred for categories which are 'immutable' - ie not subject to change. In particular, there are few differences between the two categories - which is why I thought I'd ask you about it. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've followed your suggestion and created a list, and I've tried to put in headings to sort out the different status of the Wren churches. Was this the sort of thing you meant? There are no referencesas I got most of this information from Wikipedia articles, and the rest from other websites. I checked these websites and they were consistant with each other (and consistant with Wikipedia articles) so I think they're reliable, but I don't know if websites are allowable as references. One of them was an architecture student, for example! Perhaps list pages don't need refences.
-Joedkins (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That seems fine; I'm sure references can eventually be found to support the information in the list. I've no time now; but I might do some formatting (tabulate, etc) when I do have some. I really think that is quite useful; well done. Congratulations on your first article for wikipedia! Kbthompson (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You asked me if it was a race course ... or, if it was something similar in Hyde Park. A caption was added to the portal DYK to clarify. Why are you squeaking dutch? It is no longer the festival of fools .... (I think I said "I'm not fat, I'm just cuddly" - which apart from a number of swear words learnt in choir, is the full extent of my three months in Rotterdam). Kbthompson (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Some is, some is an anagram of "Have gooda april fools day yesterday" - so, nearly right then ... one day, you'll get the English bit right. Kbthompson (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you back by the beginning of May - I'm away and need someone to check my automation of the P:L. The May articles will be in place before I go, and should just tick over for the next month - since I can't alter the wiki clock; I can have confidence, but cannot be sure it will all work! cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've had a good go at the April newsletter and it is nearly complete. However, i am going to have to wait until tomorrow as both it is late and i am waiting on the article alerts page at TWP which greatly affects this project unfortunately. Simply south (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"Agri, Aooth & Midland" To clarify, please note that theses are states (provinces) of India, presently called U.P., Bihar, Benegal and Tamilnad etc.,. This query was clarified in the past. 190.33.27.30 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC) gespee
That was a {{dn}} note; the target goes to a disambiguation page - and still does - hence the annotation. Thanks, but I require no information, the article needs to be either wiki-linked to a correct article; or the correct article created then the notice can be removed. Kbthompson (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're still after a bridge article
The experimental first instalment of my "expand all the bridge articles to something approaching adequate" drive is (hopefully) finished. I'm working (vaguely) west-to-east, in a forlorn hope that someone else does something about the London Bridge mess before I get to it. I suspect I'll get bored and give up somewhere around Hammersmith; how the hell do you find something interesting to say about Battersea Railway Bridge? – iridescent21:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to concentrate the next few days on answering some of the chaff about Smithfield, London - well unless the weather clears sufficiently to go somewhere nice. After that, I'll try to get the May update for P:L up and ready to roll. I'm away after St George's Day; and doing a tour of the Celtic fringe - upon which Scottish Isles I expect the interweb to be a distant dream; followed by a few days in Harlech.
As to bridges, they are important, and the poor things generally deserve better than they've got. You could announce a 'quality drive' at WP:London and WP:LT - I'll (eh) wade in where I can .... Kbthompson (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Cazenove
Hello, just to disagree with you and that Cazenove is a place and that the ward follows the place pretty exactly, with a few exceptions just to the north cutting off Braydon Road and the top parts of Kyverdale and Portland Roads. The estate's development was laid out by Earl Amhurst and it has a unique style that distinguishes it from the surrounding areas as well as an identifiable boundary.
Jed keenan (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jed, while what you say is true, it remains an estate within the districts of Stamford Hill and Upper Clapton. It's moving far away from the definition of what constitutes a settlement. I wouldn't conflate wards with places - the former move around every time the boundary commission wants to balance out the number of electors ... tried to use Hackney's active map to see if there are any listed buildings - can't find the answer; and for my own address it tells me to vote at a school that's been demolished - go figure.
Generally, I'd try to compare oranges - throwing in a lemon just confuses things. It's certainly not a 'suburb'.
As to rivers, it's Lee for the navigation (Act of Parliament caused the canalisation). Generally, begins to be called Lea again, below Lea Bridge (although the Lea curves to the east; and the Lee goes straight on as Hackney Cut). cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
— 16 March 2009
: 23 March 2009