User talk:Keith D/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Keith D. 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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

interview request

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Railgauge templates

Hi Keith - welcome home. I hope you had a good holiday.

In your absence there has been a discussion about the output of the railgauge templates over 1 foot and under 2 feet. In response to a request from Peter Horn you changed these to give an output in "feet and inches", but concerns have been expressed that this nomenclature is not used by those railways themselves, or by others referring to them, who almost always use the "whole number of inches" form of language - for example "15 inch gauge", not "1 foot, 3 inch gauge". The discussion, which has included Peter Horn, appears to have reached a consensus that we should return to the original output of "whole number of inches" for the imperial side of things, but nobody involved has the skills to make the necessary changes. I wonder if you might be prepared to assist? You can read the discussion at Template talk:RailGauge#Gauges between 1 ft and 2 ft. Thank you. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keith
At the sane time please take a look at Template talk:RailGauge#530 mm - 21 inch. Peter Horn User talk 15:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, make that "same time". Peter Horn User talk 15:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Keith. The main work has now been done. Tivedshambo (talk · contribs) has made the railgauge alterations. However you might still like to read the discussion, and also Peter Horn's additional comment above. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

request help with bot behaviour in lincolnshire geo projects

Hi KeithD - Ive been busy working on some of the smaller places in Lincolnshire, and have created some pages such as North Forty Foot Bank and Pelhams Land and if I try and put in a pl: category, a bot comes along and takes it of again. Any ideas how to resolve this? Many thanks. Panderoona (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the reason the BOT removes the interwiki link is that the page does not exist on the Polski wiki. You will have to create the article on that wiki for the interwiki link (pl:) to be useful here. Keith D (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

aaaaaaaaaah I see now. doh I thought it was pl = place - not pl = polski. Thanks Keith. :) Panderoona (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bravery

I may be putting noses out of joint I have no idea but being new Im also being brave and just doing what seems logical to me. I consolidated Tumby/Tumby Woodside/Tumby Moorside and I consolidated Dogdyke/Hawthorn Hill/Tattershall Ferry (or Bridge). and so on and so forth. Whilst I am not actually local to Lincolnshire, I have a great love of the place which stems from happy childhood memories and a family history totally Lincs back to the 1500s. Im a real yellerbelly but I am actually a southerner - being born in Surrey. I have little interest there since my roots are firmly in the East Midlands. I have tried to make additions that matter to places in Lincolnshire which are low category because otherwise they wouldnt get done, and frankly, its safer that way. Dealing with a big important place is a bit more scary, and Im still new here. Hoping very much that I am doing ok and not stepping on anyones toes. Panderoona (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I tend to try and keep places separate, but that is just my preference, rather than group them together. Keith D (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood - and mostly I'd agree, although there are occasions where it seems the only way to collate any information at all. In the case of Tumby theres not much to say about it apart from the old railway station which has its own page. I did one on North Forty Foot Bank - and within the scope of that lies settlements such as Hedgehog Bridge and Toft Tunnel which are barely even marked on the map. So I kind of do what seems right at the time - after all, it can always be changed. Wainfleet St Mary pointed to Wainfleet (All Saints) but I managed to find something on the place, undid the 'revert to' and created a page. Hopefully anyone with more info will come along one day and do the same with places like Tumby and North Forty Foot Bank. :) Liking your work by the way Panderoona (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FARC

I have nominated Sheffield Wednesday F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2011

Delivered May 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 04:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would later become

I see you have been amending "would later become" to "later became". Bravo! It is a most annoying phrase and an example of the sloppiest style of writing. I alter it whenever I come across it. Another one that annoys me is the use of "featuring" or "features" as in "the album features the song XXXXX" when "includes" would suffice. Keep it up. Emeraude (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There are hundreds of them, I have only done the articles with the word Yorkshire in, apart from 1 which appears to be a quote. I am surprised that it appears in FA articles. Keith D (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ravensworth

Hi, is the Ravensworth article still only at "Start" level? I'm getting some books out from the library as soon as time permits, as a lack of raw information is what is holding me back. Farrtj (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at it and it looks like a C-class now. Main problems are the references, your latest set of edits has introduced an error in one of the entries, and the lead which needs to be expanded as per WP:LEAD. It may be best to leave the lead until after you have expanding the article. Keith D (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Keith

Hi Keith,

It's been quite a while; I hope all's well. I've not been very active with the project for a while now, but circumstances have changed and I find I'm able to start easing back into editing again more regularly. If you like, you can also unprotect my user pages; I'd honestly forgotten they were semi-protected after that vandalism spree until the last few days. I think I'm safe now.

Cheers, Northumbrian (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, nice to see you back in action. There has been no movement on the Hull City players article since you were last around but the season overview article was redone in the standard format and promoted to FL status.

I have unprotected your user page - I had forgotten that I had protected it. Keith D (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dolly (trailer) and Talk:Dolly (trailer)#I.T.E.C. H-dolly

See also Talk:Dolly (trailer)#I.T.E.C. ?

Hi Keith
User:AtholM deemed any and all of the following links "spam".

I.T.E.C. Inc., Converter dollies and other options OK
I.T.E.C. Inc., Converter dollies and other options(^{[dead link‍]}?)
I.T.E.C. C-Dolly(^{[dead link‍]}?)
I.T.E.C. H-Dolly or tandem dolly(^{[dead link‍]}?)

Your input please. Peter Horn User talk 00:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keith
I'm awaiting your reply/opinion. Peter Horn User talk 20:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not responded as I have no knowledge of the subject. I cannot see why a manufacturer link is counted as spam if that is the only way of referencing the item in question. Keith D (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My question was/is: Do any, or all, of the above links constitute "advertsing" per se and hence does their inclusion under the heading "External links" constitute "spam" in any way whatsoever as AtholM so insistenly maintains. If he be right then we should remove all manufactuters webistes from the "External links" section of all articles. Knowledge, or no knowledge, of this or any other subject is not the issue here, or anywhere else. What is the issue is whether or not the inclusion of manufacturers websites as references in the "External links" section of the Dolly (trailer) article and all other articles constitutes "spam". No frivolous exceptions. To get right down to it, all corporate websites are to a large extend advertising. You (I quote you) "cannot see why a manufacturer link is counted as spam if that is the only way of referencing the item in question". May be you can help me to convince AtholM of that. Peter Horn User talk 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Added: (for good measure)

Publiquip
Remorque ASETRAIL: Atelier Ste-Émilie (^{[dead link‍]}?)
Asetrail
Remorque ASETRAIL: Atelier Ste-Émilie

Peter Horn User talk 17:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL provides an exception for the official web site of the subject of the article. If the articles are about the subject then their official web site can be used in the External links section under this exception regardless of what the "Links to be avoided" section says. In this case it looks as though the topics are about general items that could come from various manufacturers so to single out a single one for inclusion would be wrong. If you say that there is no other resource for a particular one of these then I would expect that link could be used in the references section of the article. If it is a more general article on the topic then it could appear in the External links section. Keith D (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That is why I added Asetrail above (three that work). So far it is the only other manufacturer I have been able to find. Peter Horn User talk 00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Winterbourne, Gloucestershire

An article that you have been involved in editing, Winterbourne, Gloucestershire , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

[1] duh? what was I thinking? Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Butlins Skegness

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for all the help in getting Butlins Skegness through it's GA assessment, it's greatly appreciated.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but you have done most of the graft on the article. Keith D (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverse edits

Thank you very much for pointing out the reversing of units. I've stopped the bot and I can now see how it happened. I'll fix it and track back through the articles.

With regard to 'sp=us', it's a requirement. The old template defaults to US spelling, the new one defaults to non-US spelling. Therefore to prevent a spelling change, I'm obliged to add 'sp=us'. If you look at the article before and after the edit, you'll see that the spelling hasn't changed. You'd have to go back into the article history to see who added the US spelling. The upside is that 'sp=us' is visible in edit mode (unlike the previous default) and can be corrected more easily.

Thanks again. Lightmouse (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have change a few articles that are on my watchlist. Keith D (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing those. I've identified and fixed more. There shouldn't be any reversals left now. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

You're right. I verified it. I have to remember to check the quarter as well as the year. I'll fix Liz Smith and Cathleen Nesbitt (same mistake). Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Barrow AFC

Hi, I noticed your recent edit on the page Barrow A.F.C., Please note your edit has been removed as it has be classed as vandalism. If you have any questions please state them on my user talk page, Thanks. Barrovian (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how you can class this as vandalism, I was just completing the team name as per what appears to be the consensus of WP:FOOTY. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at wp:vandal and it doesn't look like vandalism to me. I wonder how many other edits are being reverted and how many other good faith editors are being accused. Barrovian, can you look again and see if you're mistaken here and elsewhere? Lightmouse (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keith. I just noticed Barrovian claims to be 13 years old. Based on the frequency of edits, I suspect it's a flyby revert. Feel free to undo the revert. Or ignore it, as you wish. If it gets reverted again, we can take it up somewhere relevant and I'll join the discussion. Lightmouse (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of opening a general discussion on this on WP:FOOTY as we seem to keep getting the problem with a number of editors on lower league articles, yet we are inconsistent, in that the major English clubs appear to have the F.C./A.F.C. absent. Keith D (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes ... forgive my butting in here but when you look at the Project I'm sure you'll want to check the Talk archives. It's been discussed a fair bit before and every so often someone comes along and starts a new crusade to make sure that all the infobox headers must - right now - say just Townname, or Townname FC, or Townname AFC, or Townname F.C., or Townname A.F.C., or whatever. I accidentally got involved in one of these sprees a while back, and wished I had not - it's a real can of worms and attracts some, er, interesting views - I'm not sure if it ever reached a conclusion, or maybe I just didn't see it, as I may have started to lose the will to live a little somewhere along the line. I wish you luck with it. (In passing I thought "has to be classed as vandalism" above was spectacularly inappropriate - I've never really seen you as one of Wikipedia's more active vandals - and I congratulate you on not reacting strongly to it!) :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, can you give a link to the discussion as I cannot locate it at the moment. Keith D (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look and get back to you asap. It was a while ago ... DBaK (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've recalled a bit more about what it was. had an editing spree on removing FC etc from the clubname parameter from football club infoboxes. It seems that then the consensus was that it should be there, although now it looks like there may be consensus that it should not. See this for example. Now my recollection of what went on is a bit shaky but I think I got tangentially involved with this, found it a bit tricky, and then when I went to the Footy project to try and see what the consensus was, found that very difficult to nail down. Maybe it is better now - I'm not sure. One thing that muddies it a bit was that this was a rather specific sub-debate about that infobox parameter, whereas the debates in the project are quite often about the article name itself... I'm still unclear as to whether they should or should not be the same thing. I cannot now find the specific things I remember from then but stuff like http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Mossley_A.F.C.#Protection http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_29#Naming_conventions_for_clubs.3F http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_29#Difference_between_FC_.26_F.C..3F are the kinds of things that confused me. Maybe it's better now. I'm not really helping much, am I? Sorry! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember Sarumio and the problems we had then. Keith D (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Rochdale Canal

Response on my page. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Somerby

Dear Keith, today I created an article on Somerby near Brigg, which falls in the West Lindsey district of Lincs. I then realised that there is also a Somerby near Gainsborough in the West Lindsey district of Lincs. (As well as Old Somerby near Grantham, Somersby near Spilsby (article already exists) and Somerby Leics. My question is, with two places in West Lindsey - the one I created being near Brigg, and the other uncreated, what would be an appropriate name for a page on Somerby near Gainsborough, West Lindsey? Many thanks for your advice on this. Panderoona (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry re-editing due to my own spelling mistake. Panderoona (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My gazetteer has the one near Bigby as Somerby (juxta Bigby) which you could use for one of them, the other one could be then be just Somerby, West Lindsey with a {{Distinguish}} HAT note. If not then you will have to go with Somerby near Gainsborough. While you are there can you take a look at Grasby which I checked while investigating this and think that should be in West Lindsey rather than North Lincolnshire. Keith D (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much - imminent grandson/probs with elder family members may prevent me giving input pls refer either to my own page of those of Acabashi, Sitush, Carole_henson if you dont hear from me tomorrow or in the next couple of days. I value your decision and would go with it but have real life to deal with as well. Many thanks for your input it is very much appreciated. Sorry if there is no immediate response forthcoming, but it WILL be done Panderoona (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected Grasby & added infobox. Have not worked on citations for that article but will do so in time :) Panderoona (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I could not work out the border from the online map but the map in the imfobox shows it south of the North Lincolnshire border. Keith D (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome - I followed your advice on renaming Somerby. Somerby, West Lindsey points to the Gainsborough one, and I moved the original one (Somerby, Lincolnshire) to Somerby (Juxta Bigby), Lincolnshire - stupidly I forgot to remove the Lincolnshire bit, but, at least they are done. I also left a note on Talk page for future editors regarding two Somerbys in West Lindsey, and the hat note at the top of the article page. Panderoona (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Two more

Hi Keith,
At Template talk:RailGauge#Please add I posted 5 ft 1⁄2 in (1,537 mm) or 60.5 and 1062mm (1,062 mm (3 ft 5.8 in)^*). Peter Horn User talk 17:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the 1/2 in or 0.5 in "got lost in the shuffle". Peter Horn User talk 19:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Too quick, I am still trying to get that to come out. Keith D (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK - though comes with a zero. Keith D (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 20:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Another two more at Template talk:RailGauge#Please add & a correction required at Template talk:RailGauge#Rail gauge correction required Peter Horn User talk 00:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of these seem to have been queried on the talk page. Keith D (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For Georgian Railways#History please add (912mm) to replace (912 mm (2 ft 11.91 in)^*) Peter Horn User talk 01:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The source for this is a dead link in the article - is there a live link for it? Keith D (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Finding a new link will take some doing (a lot of work). Peter Horn User talk 02:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Aylesford School

The information about OFSTED and the Information about the school is not correct. The information about OFSTED is completely factually inaccurate and I have been asked by the headteacher to remove this information and to place some temporary information on the page, whilst we compile an entry that is factually accurate. I apologise if some appeared to be POV, I quickly copied an entry from our website to remove the information that is defamatory to the school.. Is there any way we can lock this information for the school as the information at the moment throws our establishment into disrepute.

Richard Ackland Director of E-Learning Aylesford School

01926 747100 ackland.r@aylesford-elearning.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rackland75 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article can be locked but it is not our policy to lock articles from editing unless there is an edit war or persistent vandalism on an article. Articles should be balanced and both negative and positive things should be given in the article, we are not here to promote a specific school by only giving positive things about them.

Are you saying that the school has never held specialist status? Keith D (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As a school, we do often have vandalism to our site, both with students from our school and those of a neighbouring school - there has been quite a bit over the years and we are thankful for your moderation during this time. We are currently preparing a factual historical record of the school to be included in this artical.

The Statement entitled Ofsted Report Aftermath, we believe was added by a disgruntled ex student. We believe that it is inaccurate in many ways. i.e

The resulting report did not have any bearing on change in status - that was a decision of the school prior to the Ofsted report. The schools results exceed that national average if you look at the national data. The specialist subjects either equal or exceed the national average based on national data The decision to change the name of the school was an executive decision to bring it into line with the changing political emphasis on specialist schools.

The school did have specialist status like many schools in the country. This was a fluid status and changed over the last 9 years. However the outcome of the last ofsted was nothing to do with the change of status - moreover the change was because of changing in government funding away from specialist statuses. We now actually hold a Humanities specialist status, but that will change when/if we become an academy. We are producing an historical document of the school which we will include all these details as well as the factual history about the school.

To say the ofsted report was 'Damning' was a point of view and I would argue overly negative. The Osfted report highlighted many positive points about the school and well as areas to improve (like all Ofsted reports) -As a school we are not ashamed of this report and it is freely available on our website and a link on Wikipedia. I feel a reader should be directed to this rather than have someone elses opinions discussing the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rackland75 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that you will have to provide third party published sources (such as newspaper articles, official reports etc.) for the school history and not rely upon information from the school itself. Keith D (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

York meetup

Hi Keith D. Just to let you know there is a Wikimedia meetup being planned in York for Tuesday. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I am on holiday next week so am not available. Keith D (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2011

Delivered June 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 03:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe

Hi Keith. Hope you had a good holiday. Please see my comments at Talk:Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe on the name of the civil parish, which appears to still be Edenham. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to IP Threat

I've offered the IP who threatened you up for AIV block. We can't accept threats like that on WP. Keep up the great work... and enjoy your holiday! That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, cannot see what I have done to them from their single valid edit must be a roving IP address. Yes I enjoyed the break though got wet a few times - typical Derbyshire weather. Keith D (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

South Kelsey

Seen the revert to "in the West Lindsey district of" - I've done a few of these so I'll have to go back and correct. Acabashi (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Surrey primary schools

What info do you think is suitable to be merged into the locale articles? Fmph (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Location detail, including co-ordinates, links to ofsted reports, former names etc. Keith D (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to any guidance for that? Or is it just your opinion? Personally if the school itself is not notable, then I don't see any reason to include lists o co-ordinates for local primary schools in town/village/locale articles.Fmph (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just my opinion, I do not think there is any guidance, the US have articles for the districts listing the school information which UK do not have so including details in the location articles is more appropriate if a separate article is not desired. Keith D (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be much easier to create and maintain such info in list articles such as List of schools in Surrey as opposed to individual locale articles. It could all be extracted from some of the public domain info sets published by the DfE and reformatted and reworked into a Primary School section. If you can get agreement for it at WP:Schools I'm up for giving you a hand to put it together. Fmph (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ashby Canal

Hi, thanks for stopping by and fixing a few things in the Ashby Canal article. I have been steadily pruning things for which I can find no sources, and am nearly there, but am left with the final para of the Construction sub-section. It ends Even though Outram's experience of his treatment by the canal proprietors must have spoilt his satisfaction on the completion of the lines, they were arguably a major achievement and a model for railways in the future. I cannot find even a hint of support for most of the paragraph in Hadfield or Clinker & Hadfield, which only leaves Schofield as a possibility. I am not terribly keen on just removing things that others have written, but in view of a number of critical reports made on the workmanship immediately after the tramways were finished, I am not sure this glowing endorsement is warranted. Any thoughts on pruning? Bob1960evens (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It was added by Chevin in this edit back in September 2006. The user is still active so may be ask them for some sourcing for the information, otherwise it will have to go. Keith D (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for the talk page rv.—Jeremy (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Simon Baldry Wikipedia Page :

Simon Baldry Wikipedia Page :

Hi there Keith D.

I hope I didin't offend you by constantly removing the header banner on the wikipedia page of Simon Baldry. I keep removing it because I think the page looks shabby with it. I have been working on the page for a while and I have not finished with it as I still have quite a lot of information to add to it.

I support Huddersfield Town and Simon Baldry is my favorite player. I heard that a lot of League clubs are interested in him at the moment and I keep removing the banner to improve the look of the page. If a club Manager goes on the page to do some research before a potentiel buy, it does not look shabby with the banner on it.

I Will add the relevant links and references to the page when I complete it. Until then the banner will remain.

Sorry again, Michael.

P.S. Please let me know how I can add a picture to the page. If I send you one could you do it for me?

Kind regards. Michael Thesus (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I must say that I also do not like that tags but they are there for a purpose. I personally would not display them for non-logged in users apart from tags related to the accuracy of the information. If the image is suitably freely licensed, cannot be fair use as the person is still alive, then it can be uploaded. I can upload images if I can access it, though you can do it yourself see Upoading Images. Keith D (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Titus Salt

Hi Keith

I know the editor inserting this has a history, but I am puzzled as to why Titus Salt is not a notable Bradfordian when he was the largest employer in the town before building Saltaire and also a mayor.--Charles (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be the consensus from previous reverts here that they do not want the list extending. I think that they are considering a separate list article and removing the existing list completely from the Bradford article. Keith D (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kelvin McKenzie

Just a heads up, I've been having a similar problem with Nick Ferrari (3 edits yesterday and 1 today so far relating to his political stance). Might take it to one of the admin noticeboards though as I don't want to get tripped up by the 3RR rule. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given them a final warning on this so that they can be blocked if they continue to add this imfo. Keith D (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2011

Delivered July 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 22:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops/thanks

Thanks for this - sorry, I hadn't realized that the formatting had gone wrong. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit reverted