User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2007 b

Slender billed curlew

Good luck. It probably won't be easy as I was unable to find any useful articles in web-of-science. I'll review it over the weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see if Shorebirds has anything useful. jimfbleak 05:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good (though as you know it won't look Good unless someone can find a picture). I may have a few tiny tweaks this weekend. —JerryFriedman 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slender-billed Curlew

Hi, I have added a few odds and ends. You might want to check out the source - I removed 1 general ref because I could not identify it. 2 more checks needed - can't find one article, and the "early 21st century" claimed records should be sourced (as it was) - I only find late 20th ones (at BirdLife). You also might want to check out this and this too, and maybe the refs at the linked BirdLife pages (or I'll do the latter, if I can come up with the stuff. Most is in fairly obscure journals). Dysmorodrepanis 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 18 April, 2007, a fact from the article White-eyed Gull, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--`'mikka 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendip Hills (again)

Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Bristol/archive2. Could I ask another favour if you have time. Mendip Hills is up as a FA candidate (again) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills & hasn't got enough support yet & is likely to run out of time soon. Could you take a look & add any comments. Thanks — Rod ^talk 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain

You're correct that I've been changing a lot of Britain to United Kingdom. The problem is that Britain is a disambiguation page, so -- with a few exceptions -- it's generally not appropriate for pages to link there. I've been doing my best to get them right, but some are ambiguous. Generally speaking, most of them refer either to the United Kingdom or Great Britain depending on whether the use is political or geographical. Since those of use who have been working on this are only about halfway through the 6000 links that originally existed, I'd be happy for any particular examples of problems you could provide. That will help us get more of them right in the future. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ThompsonVenables.jpg

Hello SP-KP, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:ThompsonVenables.jpg) was found at the following location: User:SP-KP/James Bulger Redraft. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine McCann

No offence taken. But the citation you gave doesn't say what you said it does. There is a passing reference to "Not since Diana..." but this event is in no way comparable to the death of Diana. Quakerman 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the ref you cited does not say what you say it does, as I have explaned. It says, "Since the death of Princess Diana in 1997 provoked an outpouring of national grief, Britain has tended to get wrapped up in coverage of its own tragedies, particularly when they concern children." That is not comparing this event to the death of Diana in any way. It also quotes one commentator, Simon Jenkins, not many. Therefore, since in fact the source you provided in fact contradicts what was in the article, removal of the claim until it can be substantiated is best. Quakerman 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article speaks of Diana's death as a turning point in public attitudes, but does not compare her death with the adbuction as you have suggested. The content can be included if the claims made can be backed up with a citation. I don't think they can, which is why I removed the paragraph. But if you can find a source that directly compares the two events (e.g. "The reaction to Madeleine McCann's abduction is similar to the public reaction to Diana's death because...") feel free to add it again. Quakerman 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The Herald's words are quite clear. And one Australian newspaper does not constitute "worlwide media". In fact, to date, the coverage of the Soham murders was more extreme, even according to the contradictory Herald article ("weeks of wall-to-wall coverage..." We haven't had that yet in this case. Quakerman 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated, any edit that you can substantiate with a citation that says what you say it does. Maybe simply quoting a sentence or two in context from the ref would be best. Quakerman 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature reserves categories & Bristol article

Thanks for the message. Are we using any definition of "Nature Researve" - or should I just anything owned/run by Somerset Wildlife Trust or RSPB? On the Bristol article, we have dealt with many of the issues you identified but there are still some outstanding - I was hoping to get this to FA but obviously we can't do this until the issues are dealt with. While I'm at it... Currently trying to get Bristol Harbour to GA if you fancied any copy editing or had any other comments?— Rod ^talk 13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cher

The article Cher you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Cher for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review.

• The Giant Puffin • 12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the comments to the bottom of the talk page - • The Giant Puffin • 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in West Gwynedd

Hello there - you created this article a long time ago, and I was wondering whether you had an English language source for it that you could add (see my comments on the talk page for further explanation). Thanks, Bencherlite 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On June 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shirley Temple, The Youngest, Most Sacred Monster of the Cinema in Her Time , 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.

Interesting...left me a bit speechless.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size of Wales

Hi SP-KP, I've proposed a merger on The size of Wales and thought I should let you know. Please comment on the talk page if you have time - I notice you are heavily involved with this article. In good faith, Cricketgirl 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

OTRS is for the people who answer Wikipedia's e-mail. It is not readable by the general public; however, I can tell you that we received a very politely worded request from an official at Kew Gardens. He was concerned about whether our article on a particular endangered plant should include a detailed description of where the sole known population of that plant can be found, as that could significantly increase the risk faced by the plants; I agreed, and trimmed the information from the relevant articles. That it can be found in Yorkshire is detail enough.

Okay? DS 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, look. I don't doubt that this information is verifiably true, or that references can be provided. It's a question of various other factors, including relevance. I don't want this to turn into a sort of Streisand effect thing, I don't want you to feel that the information is being Unfairly Suppressed And/Or Censored, but consider. Yes, the site is a nature reserve. Yes, it's home to various rare and endangered species. That doesn't mean we need to mention every single species that can be found there.

Moreover, consider that, although that particular endangered plant is not strictly relevant to the article, the converse is not necessarily true. This plant is balanced on the edge of extinction (albeit, I admit, this extinction would be solely within the British Isles; other populations exist worldwide). Its situation is exceedingly fragile, and (as you mentioned) the site is protected, fenced, guarded, etc. The continued inclusion of the information in the article would lead to that information becoming (and remaining) much more widespread; this could result in greatly-increased risk to the plant's survival, either from the less scrupulous collectors, or simply from excessive visitors. Do you see my point now? DS 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mother

I'm already on to it! I'm trying to find a better source now. We used to have more in the article about this, and then it was removed for some reason. I think someone complained at some point saying that Americans couldn't understand why standing on a balcony was so important! DrKiernan 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]