User talk:Rjgibb

Archives

Archive 3

To start a new talk topic, please click here.

Welcome!

Hello, Rjgibb, and welcome to Wik.ipedia.Pro! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wik.ipedia.Pro
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wik.ipedia.Pron! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wik.ipedia.Pro:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. New Guinea campaign and geography articles need a lot of work. Your efforts are appreciated. Grant | Talk 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here β^_command 11:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:326510 d9adeee7.jpg, by another Wik.ipedia.Pro user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wik.ipedia.Pro. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:326510 d9adeee7.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:326510 d9adeee7.jpg, 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. CSDWarnBot 12:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:StDunstanFrinsted.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wik.ipedia.Pro:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wik.ipedia.Pro:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC). 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 04:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ...that Mote Park's Doric-style temple shows where William Pitt and George III inspected the Kent troops formed to fight Napoleon? by Rjgibb

You have about 3 or 4 days before it is (prob.) on the main page .... OK? Victuallers 13:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mote Park, 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.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trial of Penenden Heath, 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.

Cheers, Daniel 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Giles, Wormshill, 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.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 2, 2002, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sharsted Court, 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.

Happy new year, and congratulations! · AndonicO ^Talk 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philip Zec, 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.

--Maxim (☎) 00:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the damming of the river to form the lake at Mote Park. Do you know for certain that the lake was created just to form a feature in the park, or could that be the site of a watermill? Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was dammed as part of the landscaping as far as I know - the Maidstone Borough Council guide to the park suggests as much - to form a lake for the main house. Not sure a mill was involved though I'd have thought it must've had some ramifications for the town. Cheers Dick G (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the site of a mill, Pole Mill, Boxley. See River Len page. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Many thanks. An interesting article, cheers Dick G (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for the reply. Wormshill is looking very good; a vast improvement upon the previous version. I hope WP:UKCITIES helped?

Certainly next thing I think should be implimented (though it is very labourious!), is converting all the citations with a Citation template. It can seem like a thankless task, but it does serve a purpose in standardising the look of citation, as well as aiding in combatting link rot for internet sources.

I realise that you are limited in your writing by the lack of source material. I certainly found it difficult in writing about Shaw and Crompton last spring, dispite it having a population of over 20k. I'm sure a village of 198 people may not have the same wealth of material as perhaps other places do. Is there anything in the printed, published realm that could help? Perhaps a local history book?

On the location of images, have you considered placing one within the infobox, akin to say, Runcorn? The image of St Giles church might be well served there - but you may beg to differ. It's just a suggestion to aid in dispersing and balancing the photos.

Do you know what local government district the parish fell within from 1894 - 1974? It might be worth a mention. Perhaps also, some of the latter sections could be amalgamated into a single "Culture and community" section, encompassing, filmography, community, notable people? It might stop the choppyness of some of the paragraphing.

Does that help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. WP:UKCITIES was definitely useful. To be honest I knew the citations would need work but was trying to avoid it! Will get onto it when I get time, I agree it would improve the look and feel of the page.

Am more hamstrung than most since I now live in Australia and English local history books are hard to come by. I would like to get some more material though as I appreciate some of the statements look a bit flimsy and in some 1,000 years, the place must have more of an ascertainable history.

The local government district is an interesting point. Will look into it - I suspect that will be easy enough to track down. I'll also merge the sections you mentioned - was not sure how rigid the WP:UKCITIES template was in that regard. Cheers for your help once again. Dick G (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UKCITIES are guidelines rather than policy; they certainly are not a barrier to success, simply more of a style guide. Certainly once you have History, Governance, Geography, Demography and Economy in there, you're (much more) free to merge and retitle sections according to the settlement's needs. Certainly, Manchester, a major city, is going to have different needs to Wormshill!

I do think you have done fantastically well in raising the standard of an article about such a small settlement. It could possibly be the first UK settlement of this size to obtain GA status! Once you've tackled the citation, I'd upload your new version to the main article space, then, take it to the Kent WikiProject - they may have some sources that you were not aware off. Also, consider going to Peer Review for some feedback from the wider community.

I've placed Wormshill on hold, but be mindful, there is no rush! We can certainly hang on for a couple of weeks; I realise WP:UKCITIES must be quite new to you. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's all but rewritten to the limit of my abilities now. Citations fixed and other tidying completed. Have listed it for Peer Review and flagged with WP:KENT. Thanks for all your input so far Dick G (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for the delay! I will be completing a full review for Wormshill within the next 24 hours! From a cursory glance, it appears to be a pass! -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It is certainly the first article about a UK settlement of such a small size to reach GA! Fantastic!... Next... WP:FA?? Best of luck! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been removed because someone uploaded it to http://en.veropedia.com/a/Wormshill and they will not use Fair use images. Just a guess, but I see that it is uploaded there. So its remove is probably not because anyone on Wik.ipedia.Pro contests it. Or they may have removed it for their own veropedia reasons e.g. whoever uploaded it thought it was better without the image. Mattisse 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but disappointingly it seems it is being contested by a Wik.ipedia.Pro admin... see here. I hope to be able to keep it on the page but am pessimistic about over-zealous editors and their narrow interpretation of policy. As a qualified lawyer I am bemused by the paranoia on images such as this Dick G

Emotive comments struck out by me on reflection Dick G (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't worth littering the Wormshill talk, but in "early example of ... longevity", I deleted "early". This user thinks of, say, Methuselah as being an "early" example. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Spring and Harvest festivals are horticultural shows including the surrounding villages whilst the country fair (or fête) in the early summer ..." I believe I'm the only US-En speaker on WP who understands that "whilst" is a perfectly good word in Br-En; however, Tony1's excellent article on FA-quality prose (search "additive links") points out that whilst/while should not be used for general conjunction. "Let's take a walk while it's still cool" (at the same time that it is cool)", but not "My car is blue, while my house is white". Forgive me if this sounds like a lecture rather than an explanation, but I was afraid that otherwise, you or another Brit would snort, "Another bloody Yank who goes around deleting 'whilst'!" "While" would have been deleted here, also. Feel free to delete this message, too. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. It's refreshing and broadening to edit articles about which one knows nothing, and it was indeed interesting to learn and copy-edit the dialectical differences. Please let me know how the article fares, in case I miss it, and if I'm ever fortunate enough to visit England, perhaps you'll be visiting family, and we'll meet at the Blacksmiths Arms for a cold one. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the Barnstar - thanks! For that, the beer is on me :) Warm beer in Hasted's "cold, bleak" climate sounds good! (Is the ale cold?) Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind -- just learned yet another piece of Br-En: "Beer" and "ale" are used interchangably, correct? Two different products here, one is more the lager type, the other either genuine British or brewed in that style. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do to step on Tony's toes? Of course, there were some good points in the review--there always are; none of us are perfect, and another pair of eyes always helps--but I must agree with your assessment of the overall tone. I noted specific "objections to the objections", and would have done more, but it's becoming late and time to quit. I wish you'd have told me of these--I'm always interested in feedback, positive or negative, on any of my work, and in this case, some of the censure seemed quite unwarranted. Keep me posted. Cheers anyway, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authors/principal editors definitely need to appear to be (and be) willing to respond to reviewers and not be married to their words. Independent editors like copy-editors, however, don't have this natural attachment to the existing prose; in fact, I thought perhaps I gave the article too brutal of a vetting :) I don't understand why an Australian editor (T1) would have more problems with UK-En than this relatively-uninitiated Yank did. From his user-page: "I like the way in which the project brings anglophones into a relatively homogenous international community to share their wonderful language." Doesn't seem that that happened here. Over and out for now, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought (actually, two). Pardon the unpardonable braggadocio, but *strictly* for the purpose of establishing that I'm not just some illiterate user off the street who slapped the "Copy-Editor" logo on a user page: The other article I was working on along with yours, Massospondylus, was c/e'd by moi, pursuant to GAC, on 7 December. It was promoted to GA a couple of days later. The principal editors took it to FAC almost immediately (rather unusual?), received review feedback, made some changes accordingly, and asked me to re-copy-edit the revised version. I did, also making some changes in accord with the FAC, and completed the copy-edit at 04:28 on 19 December. It was promoted to FA less than 24 hours later. I will leave it to those editors as to whether the correlations were accidental. But this user is not totally un-credentialed.

The other thought is that in fact, I had asked T1 for help about whether to put pub names in "quotes" or Blacksmiths Arms italics. I thanked him for his answer and mentioned that he was doing an FAC on it, and I was doing my best with the article. Sort of get to know the other frequent users, etc., this "anglophone community" that he mentioned. Perhaps he took that as soliciting some sort of favoritism for the FA review, and felt the need to be unduly harsh? Or it could be just coincidence. Just very hard to understand the whole thing. To sleep, perchance to dream, Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for straightening that out. I can't offer my own views on the FAC, since I am likely the one who will promote or archive the article (unless Raul happens to get to it before I do); I can't be judge and jury. I can offer the advice that you heed Tony's comments and do your best to satisfy him, as he is a respected FAC reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to comment? Tony1 may be a respected FA reviewer, but that does not mean he is immune to valid criticism. I do believe that the tone of some of his comments, both in this FAC and in others, could easily be considered unprofessional. He has in the past stated that Wik.ipedia.Pro demands brilliant prose of a professional standard in its articles. I think it is reasonable for us to demand professional behaviour from its FAC reviewers too, and, although many of his points were valid, the tone in which he raised them or reacted to questions about them was unprofessional.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contact about this articles candidature. I will post a note about this at WP:UKGEO and try to take a look at this within the next day or two.... You may be interested in taking a look at Neilston when you get chance - I'm currently working on bringing this to GA myself. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem; the text is most very well-written, and I look forward to your contributions on other UK-related articles (which have needed far more help than has the one on Wormshill, although the general standard has improved over the past year). Tony (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. I may not get through the whole thing but I'll see what I can do. I'll make comments on the article talk page to avoid cluttering up the FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you don't agree with any of my edits, just revert them; no need to worry about hurting my feelings. I'm happy to talk about them if you like, but I'm also fine with you just working with whatever you want to keep. Mike Christie (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the windmills detail in. Knew it wasn't the Surrey Beddington as that would be in Farries & Mason's book The Windmills of Surrey and Inner London - if there was a windmill there! Mjroots (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy of the 1819-43 OS map, just WCF's word for it that the windmills are marked. Maybe someone else will be able to supply an extract. Rewrite that part as necessary, I don't mind.

PS - how about reorganising this page, like I've done with my talk page. Saves having stuff all over the place! Mjroots (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, wrong place again! Too near bed time!! Mjroots (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		I hereby award Rjgibb a Geography Barnstar for his fine work on Wormshill, which is now featured cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't always look like Wormshill was going to make it, but your persistence and perseverance paid. Congratulations! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations mate. Delighted such a small village can make it to FA in the face of a not insignificant amount of initial resistance.--John Gibbard (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a job well-done. I never doubted you would push through the brambles. Keep writing, and please let me know when you've got something else delicious to work on. Finetooth (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that the previous version only dealt with transport between different places, now there is information about internal transportation. Thanks for the changes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British History Online website has Hasted's work available online. Thought you'd be interested in the entry for Wormshill. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a few unreferenced items are sneaking in, which could affect the article's FA status in the long run. Also, see my comment on the talk page re the division between East Kent and West Kent. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response on your Talk page. Thanks Dick G (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! How on earth did I manage to miss that! Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the idea of a template for Wormshill, similar to {{Tonbridge}}. Probably won't need to be quite so involved though. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{West Peckham}} is an example of a small village template. Off the top of my head, I'd expect a Wormshill template to have four sections - arts & leisure, buildings, locations, people. Maybe this could be brought up at the talk page or possible at a WP - is there a FA WP? Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm still not sure about uploading photos from Geograph. Square TQ6152 oicture titled 'Kent Cottages' shows the mill cottages to Hamptons Paper Mill. Can you add this to the article please? Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image added and response on your talk page Dick G (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank for editing it! Would you mind merging Anthemoessa with http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Sirenum_scopuli like you suggested? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you merge articles? Neptunekh (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wik.ipedia.Pro by creating the page Sharsted Court. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your welcome back! I have been in the throes of Dartford and its various offshoots, but I will certainly have a look at Maidstone when I have time... Happy New Year! Peter Shearan (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the Somerset FAC at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Featured article candidates/Somerset. As a team of editors I believe we have now addressed all your concerns - perhaps you'd take another look?— Rod ^talk 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there has been a problem with FAC (possibly due to transcluded pages/templates & overall page size). As a result several nominations, including Somerset, have had to be restarted and I have been informed that all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing), including yours is void. As a result would you be kind enough to review the page and place any comments at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Featured article candidates/Somerset. Thanks— Rod ^talk 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head. This quote from your FAC—This will be a sticking point. The article cannot be promoted if in breach of MOS.—appears as a power trip and as nearly unilateral, given that most of MOS has been set up by three people. An article will always be "in breach" of some aspect of MOS, because its labyrinthine guidelines ensure it. The hyper-enforcement and excessive development of the manual of style have been, I think, one of the most destructive efforts, by completely good-faith users, impacting article development during the last year or more. It is apparent to me that the type of person most willing to bother with featured article submission is, perhaps, an earnest high school student who will happily scamper about correcting style elements, because some "rule" says so, and after all, they're learning about the community they're exploring by doing so. But he or she is likely writing about an album, a TV show episode, a video game, and so on. My pet theory is that the "style-not-content" review style has, on average, encouraged my hypothetical student to write on Wik.ipedia.Pro, while discouraging the hypothetical scientist, literature professor, librarian, or psychologist—all, perhaps, a little less receptive to having their substantive contribution ignored in favor of discussion about referencing format, dots in captions, how to write a measurement, and the like. But I wonder which group is inherently more capable of building important encyclopedia articles? What I'm saying is that this ever-growing review style has and will continue to skew FA candidates towards minor and non-academic subject matter, because reviewers are acting as unhealthy agents of selection for the type of editor willing to submit a FAC. (Wait until the developing effort to mandate that "non-breaking spaces (" ") must go here and here and here" gets hold in FAC! Banality and frustration galore!)

I apologize; I'm just a passerby with a viewpoint to share after reading your viewpoint! –Outriggr § 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't retire (hehe) for those reasons. Other factors influenced me, including concerns about Wik.ipedia.Pro as an organization and its conflicts of interest (ethics, if you will). And just an icky feeling that "trying to improve articles" is the last thing that the place is really about: from secretive admin behavior to fair-use image bots, much is not inspiring. I ought to be able to consider that I'm contributing to posterity, not Wik.ipedia.Pro, by being here, but it's hard to do that. I do sense that every GFDL contribution is mostly a contribution to Wales' Wik.ipedia.Pro, because that entity is what will have to be attributed in re-use. Short version... regards, –Outriggr § 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 September 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Doping at the 2007 Tour de France. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As one of our FA editors (for Wormshill), I wondered how you felt about the proposals being made at Wik.ipedia.Pro_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Power_and_resources regarding a possible expansion to the guidelines to encompass Public services. You're input would be very welcome. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continually following my contributions and correcting my sloppy edits :) --John Gibbard (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you are able do something about the "Crocodile Oil" page. Have done my best in my clumsy ignorant way. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.44.176 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It needed nothing more subtle than a complete deletion of some blatant advertising. Expect someone (the original author?) will object to the changes in any event...Dick G (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'm now registered, not just IP 92.0.44.176 Almost-instinct (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I was 92.0.145.142, too ;-) Almost-instinct (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm thoroughly over my desire to see humour on WP - but I've noticed that some contributors take a dry-as-dust tone, saturated with Latin-rooted terminology. One of the qualities of English is the variety of tone, with different words available meaning pretty much the same thing (eg go - depart - exit) A pair of general rules of readability - which to my mind is even more important on the screen than it is on the page - would be, firstly, to use the most natural word rather than the most impressive and secondly, to avoid cumbersome formulaeic constructions. But I'm not saying anything original here! Almost-instinct (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you advise me which of the various rules the most recent edit of this is breaking is the most pertinent? Point of view? The rules on biogs of living people? Just being rubbish? May I undo? I'm not sure of the form. Talk about poacher turned gamekeeper, eh?! Thank you! Almost-instinct 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (again!) Almost-instinct 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More advice please: could you cast an eye over the "copyright" section of Talk:Philip Larkin and add your tuppence worth? Almost-instinct 22:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this kind of thing appeal at all? almost-instinct 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'm not sure I'm expecting much, but I'm curious about what goes on... WP talk pages are interesting place for people-watching; it's also interesting how easy it is to get sucked into disagreements about things, even if one has resolved never to get involved in these kinds of things. I'm also not sure how much momentum my attendance here will have once if done everything I can for Philip Larkin and associated pages. When I saw what a state it was in 6 weeks ago, I felt embarrassed on behalf WP and also England, and since the facts are very easily available knew I'd be able to do something. Another thing else which has interested me is the sheer quantity of care and attention shown by other editors working on the PL pages, despite the fact that they know next to nothing about him. Goes to show the benefits of the WikiProjects for places: regional pride gets channelled very usefully. almost-instinct 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey just wanted to say thanks for your input on Neil Entwistle, you made some great points. i did realize right after i commented that simply merging the pages without further discussion was not a reasonable "solution" (i was not the one who linked them, i managed to restrain myself from commandeering the articles :). thanks also for (restating) your justification for deleting the merge tags, i somehow missed that from your first comment, and your suggestion to postpone serious merge discussions seemed logical. anyway. it all just really stood out as level-headed and constructive, i had to say thanks - Shadowsill (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at James Cook. I probably haven't read anything about him since I had a Ladybird book so I had quite a fresh eye... What struck me was that the final "legacy" section is a bit of a mess: the pieces of information seem to be in a jumble. If they were rearranged into chronological order ... or something ... hey, I can do this myself, huh?! almost-instinct 09:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went away and had a think about this. IMO you would be absolutely right in making three separate articles for the three voyages: there will be important detail about them which won't necessarily be of the utmost relevance to the man himself. Also, given that his article does have a general-interest aspect, perhaps it won't want to be too much longer. For the voyages there could have a structure common to all three articles. For example:

• When and who
• Proclaimed aims
• Actual aims
• Chronology
• How the aims were fulfilled
• If/how/why the voyage became distracted
• What was discovered en passant
• In what ways the voyage was recorded
• What reception there was back in England to the voyage
• What effects the voyage had on the places visited

I was going to say that IMO a structure in this vein would be more likely to attract the contributions of the truly knowledgable, but I thought my rejigging of the Philip Larkin article would do that, with no luck yet! almost-instinct 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've no idea why I thought you needed all of the above — it all just came to me as I was doing the washing-up! almost-instinct 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been away for quite a while, since shortly after the Wormshill "debate". (Strictly coincidental, I'm sure.) Just saw the essay on your front page, and couldn't agree more. (I dare not presume to have been referred to in any way in the essay, of course.) Count me among the lost, I guess. Anyway, perhaps one day we'll have that warm beer in the Blacksmiths Arms, or a cold one on a warm beach inhabited by women clad in dental floss, should you ever make it to this side of the Pond. Fond regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warm wishes, but I'm afraid my malaise is permanent. I'm still a frequent browser of WP, and lately have caught myself uncontrollably correcting things like the misuse of "it's" for "its" (drives me nuts, especially in a Main Page, In The News, or Featured article), but as for copy-editing -- I could bore you sometime with the details, but think "Sisyphus" and you'll get the gist. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought that the British educational system, which surely would be superior to the long-deteriorating US educational system, would have included the classics as standard fare. <soapbox>Sad but true fact: A survey showed that most of today's US high school (tenth- to twelfth-year) students were unfamiliar with such "ancient classics" as George Orwell's novel, "Nineteen Eighty-Four". It was about a time before they were born, so it's of no significance today. (sic) </soapbox> Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a rivalry, never has been, just admit that your wrong.

Hi there! I'm trying to have this horrible page deleted. Speedy delete didn't work so come and have your say here. almost-instinct 12:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Leo Stein (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wik.ipedia.Pro's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wik.ipedia.Pro is not" and Wik.ipedia.Pro's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tassedethe (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GattonHall.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Gatton Hall.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wik.ipedia.Pro, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wik.ipedia.Pro, in this case: [[Image:Gatton Hall.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....has got some unreferenced claims but you have put fact tags on sentences that are reffed and made a claim that "irony" is a weasel word. Having a "bay" well away from the coast IS irony. There is no vaguness about it. The FACT that the BBC say this is true is a ref. Could you review your edits please. I agree with the later bit ... the fact that "some woman" agrees is hardly a citation. Victuallers (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered reply ... would you like to review and see if you can improve the article? cheers Victuallers (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC) thx Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the point you made in the Snatch article about the perceived vulnerability of the Jackal, laregly because the article is about the vehicle, not the media interpretation of procurement decisions. All vehicles are vulnerable to IED or man-portable weapons, you just need to find the right weapon for the target, so saying that a vehicle is vulnerable is a bit nugatory. We've just recently been through some discussion about the direction of the article, which had turned into a bit of a personal essay from someone who appears to be a political researcher.

There may be some mileage in an article discussiong the various procurement decisions and the MoD procurement process itself, although Jackals were an Urgent Operational Requirement so didn't go through the rigour of a full procurement. That said, it might be quite challenging to source it credibly, the media tend to cherry pick the NAO reports so aren't really all that credible.

ALR (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. No one was willing to step in anyways.... Ominae (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RinglestoneRoad.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ringlestone Inn.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wik.ipedia.Pro, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wik.ipedia.Pro, in this case: [[File:Ringlestone Inn.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there DICK G, VASCO from Portugal here,

I just saw this "person" had this anonymous IP "operating", and also saw he vandalized your talk page, after which you responded very politely (http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/User_talk:92.0.145.142).

Upon a closer look, i realized this happened over a year ago, but, has they say, it's never too late for some clarifications:

This "person", which has operated with various anonymous IP, also has 12 sock accounts of the main one, Pararubbas (find everything here http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Wik.ipedia.Pro:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), has never made one single edit summary or responded to a single talkpage message. Additionally, he operates mainly with Portuguese football articles, and wrote in such appalling English, full of POV/WEASEL i honestly thought he did not know 3 good words in English...

...That's when i saw your message, followed by the fact i saw he operates from England (i learned last week how to work with GEOLOCATE).

Pityful, you take care DICK, have a nice week, and don't think he will cooperate in any form, because he won't...

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there GIBB, VASCO again,

I see that you are already back, welcome. No response whatsoever? All right, i am sorry to have bothered you with my warning, take care, sorry once again...

--NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this. I must have been half asleep, didn't notice the ref attached. Euryalus (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By chance my local library had it. I'm not a fan of her writing style - I prefer a slightly colder tone than hers - but thats just a personal view. The article is pretty good, but just needas few more referneces and some sections expanded. I also read your essay and share your surprise that the article hasn't been focused on by Australian or New Zealand editors. Euryalus (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wrote a page about a young adult novel called more than weird. Here's the link: http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/More_than_weird. Could you edit it or clean it up or wikifying it? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RCYJersey.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wik.ipedia.Pro (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rjgibb,

I'm asking Wik.ipedia.Prons who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wik.ipedia.Pro all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wik.ipedia.Pro (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wik.ipedia.Pro:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wik.ipedia.Pro are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wik.ipedia.Pro:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:John theodore goddard.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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Kingsdown (hamlet), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doddington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:BlacksmithsArms.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Churchinterior.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Wormshill know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 30, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Today's featured article/March 30, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Wormshill is a small village and civil parish within the Borough of Maidstone, Kent, England. It lies on an exposed high point of the North Downs, 11 miles (18 km) north of Maidstone and within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Archaeological and toponymic evidence of Wormshill's existence predates its appearance in the Domesday survey of 1086. Its name derived from the Anglo-Saxon god Wōden and meaning "Woden's Hill". The village contains a number of heritage-listed buildings, which include a Norman church (St Giles, Wormshill, pictured), a public house and one of the oldest surviving post office buildings in the United Kingdom. The Bredgar and Wormshill Light Railway runs between two small stations in nearby woodland. The fields and woodland surrounding Wormshill have changed little in the past 500 years, and the village itself remains rural with a low population density compared to the national average. Because of geography and restrictions on development, building in the village has been scant since the 1960s and 1970s. The population of 200 is a mixture of agricultural workers employed by local farms and professional residents who commute to nearby towns. (Full article...)

Bencherlite^Talk 09:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 811th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 811 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wormshill page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wormshill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Imperial Force. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Q Force is suitable for inclusion in Wik.ipedia.Pro according to Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Articles for deletion/Q Force until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Z Force (Action Force) is suitable for inclusion in Wik.ipedia.Pro according to Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Articles for deletion/Z Force (Action Force) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SAS (Action Force) is suitable for inclusion in Wik.ipedia.Pro according to Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Articles for deletion/SAS (Action Force) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Laser is suitable for inclusion in Wik.ipedia.Pro according to Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Articles for deletion/Red Laser until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Jackal is suitable for inclusion in Wik.ipedia.Pro according to Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Articles for deletion/Red Jackal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Action Force characters has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]