![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
As it's raining, I've been giving this a "good looking at"! I can see that the whole article needs to be restructured as per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. The history section is mostly administrative history of the Riding. Can we broaden this to be about the area as the Wolds have a lot to offer e.g. Arras culture. Maybe we could revise the ToDo list on the talk page as a start?-- Harkey ( talk) 10:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
(reset indent) Now that harvesting is just about done, I have been looking again at the East Riding article; in particular the Demographics section. Do you know whether there are any updated statistics for the towns mentioned, please? I have sourced a few juicy (2007) stats for the whole Riding but they sit a bit uncomfortably with the 2001 stats for Bridlington, Goole, etc.-- Harkey ( talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I noticed that there were more hospitals when I was researching yesterday. And well remember from my childhood that a field just outside Bridlington had a hoarding up for years and years saying it was to be the site of the new hospital. There must be more amateur sport as well in some of the towns. There is a lot still to do. I got distracted by the Derwent Arms prod. I hate to see one go down.-- Harkey ( talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sport and leisure is a good idea. I thought about including a couple of airfields as I was driving back from Beverley and passed one today. Can we ( are we allowed to?) include a See also to Category:Villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire and do you know how complete it might be? I know the present village section will need to be turned into text at some point. The villages included seem to be a fairly random selection!-- Harkey ( talk) 21:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to keep nattering at you. I just need to know whether you think the list of villages in the village section is a fairly representative selection before I try to turn it into some sort of prose. Are there any howling omissions? Thanks.-- Harkey ( talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this it?-- Harkey ( talk) 13:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the Warwick Business School should be included into the article of the University of Warwick, and should be linked to the other wikipedia article on the Warwick Business School. If the business school is not included than certainly the medical school should not be included which is the least known department. For example the article about upenn, the business school is explicitely mentioned as particularly known, as Wharton is the most famous department at upenn and other departments are not very known abroad. The same is with Warwick, the business school is the largest and most well known department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.69.66 ( talk) 13:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I made a few minor copyedits to the article to make some points clearer. Hope this is OK. As I too have little previous knowledge of the chap, I think the article is really quite neutral now.-- Harkey ( talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith. I don't know if you've spotted it yet, but Yaunchy has suddenly reappeared and moved the article back to the title of Leeds City Region, without consensus. I have not taken any action to revert his edit in the event of suggestions of edit warring. In view of his contribution history/edit summaries I am also wondering if the anon IP 90.212.254.251 is also his. Richard Harvey ( talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith, We now seem to have a newly registered editor, who has done a redirect on the
Leeds City Region Partnership article to 'Leeds City Region, even though
Harkey is working on the new
Leeds City Region article. So I have just reverted that edit. Checking his contributions I note he has also created a new article:-
Leeds city region, which is being populated from the 'LCRP' article, which I have not touched. His IP is
91.105.40.148 . He appears to be operating through an Orange / Wanadoo IP. As it seems odd for someone to come on purely with the purpose of editing that article I'm wondering if the IP is a 'Sockpuppet.' Would it be worth protecting the 'LCRP' article untill thibks are sorted out, as its getting rather confusing?
Richard Harvey (
talk)
17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, although looking at the OS squad list, it seems quite distorted; multiple players have been assigned to one number. I suspect the numbers have been updated for the new season but something's gone wrong in updating the website. Cheers, Mattythewhite ( talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Keith,
what is your issue with the tone of the comment about cycling ?
It isn't rude to the tram company or any organisation. As the article stands, without this piece the article takes an approach that is largely technical but not completely so - it also paints the picture of a entirely positive system with no disadvantages for anyone. That does not present a fair picture. In the points I am making about the consequences for cyclists I am attempting to redress the balance a little from an article that as it stands is pure promotion of the system to one that is more balanced and fair to all stakeholders.
If you can demonstrate your point about tone by changing the text I have supplied while retaining its meaning please do do. I watch with interest.
andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy422001 ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Keith - thankyou for clarifying. As I've written it now there much less emotive slant on this content. It is however necessary to shift the balance slightly. For example, your suggestion "Folding bicycles, if bagged, can to be carried on the Supertram while other types of bicycle are prohibited" *is* actually still biased - no phrase can be not biased. Compare with "Bicycles cannot be carried on the tram unless they are both folding and bagged" - the emphasis is different in each. Its important that the balance is fair because some groups are disenfranchised - for example poorer people do not generally have folding bikes because they are more expensive - it *isn't* unbiased to assume that allowing folding bikes solves the problem. Also, it generally is not possible to evidence *everything* - some things are often left unevidenced because they are self-evidently true. There is solid evidence behind all of the points made and I am in process of assembling it - though I *do* wonder how much one really needs to evidence these obvious things. In academic papers one evidences only things that are controversial and not widely accepted - everything I have written is widely accepted in cycle-campaigning circles in Sheffield as true and supported in many reports and articles.
andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy422001 ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You comment " the article is tagged and it is not controversia)". It's certainly tagged but any non-sourced material may be challenged. Since you wish to retain the 'article' as-is could you please add sources? Regards Trilobyte fossil ( talk) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Keith,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my request for support. You will recall, that I was proud to be mentioned within an article on Coventry (and as you mentioned, Woodlands School) but that the link went to an American chap of the same name.
I should very much like to take up your kind offer of help in having my biography published on Wikipedia. I clearly agree that it should not be written by myself and that it all needs verification. I would be more than happy to support this and supply any information you require.
I have a webpage which is something of a Curiculum Vitae. The link is [1]
I can supply a number of articles written about me in magazines and papers if you would like them to help verify imformation.
I also have a considerable number of photo's too.
Once again, thank you Keith for your kind offer of support. I really appreciate it. Very best regards, Kevin 213.166.17.10 ( talk) 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
kevin.reilly@hants.gov.uk
Gotcha!! Some you win, some you lose.-- Harkey ( talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just put an indefinite block on this account for trolling. You views on this block would be welcome at ANI Theresa Knott | token threats 08:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You have undone my edit about Mark's death on 2nd August. I can assure you that the information is correct as I heard the news from an assistant at his Retirement Home. Mark was an old friend of mine, the connection being via the 24th Lancers, of which he was Padre during WWII. Mark's funeral is on 9th September. Sincerely Steve Pannell. 92.2.181.29 ( talk) 08:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Keith D, I have been in contact with a user that's working on Yorkshire articles but one of his articles was deleted some time back (not sure when) and wants to do some work on it in his sandbox. I have now discovered that only admins can retrieve deleted pages so I was wandering if you could help. It is called WJ Groundwater Limited. 95jb14 ( talk) 10:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith, I intend to expand the history section a lot more and clarify the difference between the local government district and the Honour. I went over to Richmond last Friday to get a couple of the books that are mentioned in the list. (Then spent most of Saturday reading them!) I think the best thing to do with the references section for now is to hide the second part, i.e. the list of books, until I have done a bit more research, etc. Then, as I add text, I will convert them into inline citations and delete them from the list or add them as further reading. A couple are a bit erm... esoteric, to say the least.-- Harkey ( talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Keith.-- Harkey ( talk) 11:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your recent edits to this article, I wasn't aware of the MoS guidelines on ordinals in dates (which seems odd to me but not going to argue), specifying the formats if the ref' is a pdf and non-breaking spaces. You did though make a mistake with changing the punctuation to after the citation, so I'll be restoring the correct formatting for those changes. Thanks for the interest though. -- NicholasAdams ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
>Hi, thanks for correcting my error on the project for Tongue End.
Why in God's name did you revert my edit to the Market Deeping article? It's right there in the summary - "prove me wrong". Find more than one notable person and then the article can refer to "notable people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.99.65 ( talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As its the "silly season", how about somthing on Yorkshire seaside resorts? Lots of people will be visiting them over the August Bank Holiday. Is there a list or category? Is there a category on Commons for photos and maps, etc? Just a thought!-- Harkey ( talk) 12:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read your comment on its talk page and have updated the page to follow its requests. Is it enough to merit a C-class article?-- OsirisV ( talk) 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already added my thoughts to the relevant talk page, but noticed that you have been active on the page and thought I would run this past you. As far as I can see, a large list of alumni has been added as vandalism with no evidence as support. I've already deleted Tom Heaton because his inclusion is absolute nonsense. I'm also confused about the inclusion of a Nobel prize winner, which I thought I might have heard of during my time at the school. What action would you recommend? 86.135.81.220 ( talk) 10:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I can hardly believe that any of this page is notable. Many of the alumni are not even notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, so I am quite surprised to find them on the Alumni list. The Old Lincolnians link at the bottom of the page is fine, except for the fact that it is not linked in with the article at all. I can almost guarentee that the Nobel Prize winner is false, since I attended the school for seven years and they would almost certainly have wheeled out that achievement at any oppurtunity, and yet I have never heard of any such thing. Also, I think some of the awards at the bottom of the page would struggle to be called notable 86.135.81.220 ( talk) 10:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As you are one of the principle contributors to this article, I wanted to be sure you were aware that Hull City A.F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This is regarding
Template:Kosovo-note and user
User:Tadija.
Apparently there is a consensus to have the Template written in such a way, which clearly uses POV wording and a poor use of the English language.
His version says that Kosovo is "unrecognized by 130 UN member states". This is a poor use of English and is misleading. Kosovo is not "unrecognised" it is non-recognised by 130 countries. Unrecognised implies that they used to recognise and that recognition has since been withdrawn.
The wording is generally POV as it explicitly say how many countries don't recognise Kosovo before saying how many do, no where else on wiki does that. Mentioning of the Republic of China has also been removed. All this is POV INHO.
There is an apparent consensus for this on the talk page, but as you can see he has canvassed to pro Serb users who all supported his consensus, see here:
Also on the discussion page on the Kosovo note, Cinema C unilaterally declared the discussion over, despite objection to canvassing. Cinema C is one of the users Tadija canvassed to. If you look at the template history, he has continued reverting my edits even though I have explained to him on his talk page. I have also warned him about the 3RR. For some reason after I posted a warning on his talkpage regarding the 3RR, he posted one on mine even though I obviously know the rules of 3RR since I just posted it on his page. Is this trolling?
Can you please give your judgement regarding the talkpage consensus. Hopefully you will see it is not neutral and that canvassing has been biased. Could you also monitor a new consensus building please to maintain neutrality and to stop canvassing please. Regards
IJA (
talk)
22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by
ENewsBot ·
08:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I got a message I apparently edited it.
I never did. I'm not even registered to edit pages. Wasn't me Bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.217.113 ( talk) 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi KeithD, Thanks for the welcome note to Wikipedia amnd thanks for the input onto the articles I've been working on. I noted that they have moved to Start status which is gratifying. I wonder if you could perhaps give me a bit of feedback on them particularly Sambourne or Spernall of which there is not a lot moe to say as these palces are issolated hamlets really. Any feedback would be welcomed. Cheers Adrian Argrogan ( talk) 07:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith D. Please could you kindly look at the above article which various unregistered contributors have been adding to in controversial fashion. What they say may be true for all I know, but what worries me is that they are writing unsubstantiated critical comments about a living person. As I'm just an ordinary contributor myself, I've just been putting cite tags on it, but the unsubstantiated section of the article is now becoming disproportionately large. Thanks.-- Storye book ( talk) 13:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding splitting of the Leeds article. As you were involved in the previous merge discussion you might be interested in this. Quantpole ( talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Keith,
Thanks for the review of Sambourne I will try to make the corrections suggested when I get the time to do some serious editing Argrogan ( talk) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The GCSE results for The King's Academy were 73% in 2009. The article text needs to be amended to reflect this, as I have attempted to do.
The article source is www.gazettelive.co.uk/.../teesside-students-celebrate-gcse-results-84229-24545306/
Can you assist me in creating a reference for this source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.193.154 ( talk) 21:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Keith, Could you save the last referenced article from the Evening Gazette to show both pages, as the necessary reference to The King's Academy is located on the second page, not the first page that is currently showing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.193.154 ( talk) 22:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at this article and fiddled about with (sorry, revised) the text. There are quite a few references to it online, but in a different vein. Maybe you could see what you think?
I shall be away from tomorrow until Monday so I will have another go when I get back if you think it needs it. Sadly, I didn't save Teddy's Nook (what a name for a house!) so moved the text to Saltburn-by-the-Sea. Maybe it will be revived one day.-- Harkey ( talk) 20:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Now then me duck
You've added a 'contradiction' tag about eduction, and while I agree that it looks a bit odd to have references to the independent schools in both the history and governance sections I can't see an actual contraditiction.
Maybe I'm thick. I certainly didn't go to Stamford school!-- Brunnian ( talk) 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes - Wikipedia has the answer. "This organisation now comprises Stamford Junior School, a co-educational establishment for pupils aged between 2 and 11 years, Stamford School for boys aged 11–18, and Stamford High School catering for girls of the same age group." It is on the Kettering Road very close to the girls school. Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for your note, resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
Hi Keith, How are you? I see the bot is working again...glad you were able to find the fix for it. Regards, Ganeshk ( talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you have been preparing the October newsletter. It hardly seems a few days since the last one landed on my doorstep! Do you have any thoughts about a feature, yet?-- Harkey ( talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith
Sorry not to get back to you sooner - was perhaps feeling a bit wiped out by all the stroppy argumentation re Leeds/Leeds.
Yes, Yorkshire categories are a mess... not least because "Yorkshire" doesn't currently exist (which raises an interesting question about the wikiproject - should it actually be "Yorkshire and the Humber"?!).
Looking at a category like Category:Buildings and structures in England by county, you find Category:Buildings and structures in Yorkshire. But if you go to Category:Grade II listed buildings in England by county there's Category:Grade II listed buildings in West Yorkshire. Then there's Category:Buildings and structures in Yorkshire, which really shouldn't exist.
Perhaps what's really needed is agreement (at some UK/England level?) that "... by counties" should always refer to Ceremonial counties, so that there's an unambiguous set of divisions... but the Yorkshire nationalists would throw a fit. I haven't the stomach for such a fight, but good luck to you! PamD ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I just did a GA nomination for Anne Bronte. We can but try!-- Harkey ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
As it's raining, I've been giving this a "good looking at"! I can see that the whole article needs to be restructured as per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. The history section is mostly administrative history of the Riding. Can we broaden this to be about the area as the Wolds have a lot to offer e.g. Arras culture. Maybe we could revise the ToDo list on the talk page as a start?-- Harkey ( talk) 10:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
(reset indent) Now that harvesting is just about done, I have been looking again at the East Riding article; in particular the Demographics section. Do you know whether there are any updated statistics for the towns mentioned, please? I have sourced a few juicy (2007) stats for the whole Riding but they sit a bit uncomfortably with the 2001 stats for Bridlington, Goole, etc.-- Harkey ( talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I noticed that there were more hospitals when I was researching yesterday. And well remember from my childhood that a field just outside Bridlington had a hoarding up for years and years saying it was to be the site of the new hospital. There must be more amateur sport as well in some of the towns. There is a lot still to do. I got distracted by the Derwent Arms prod. I hate to see one go down.-- Harkey ( talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sport and leisure is a good idea. I thought about including a couple of airfields as I was driving back from Beverley and passed one today. Can we ( are we allowed to?) include a See also to Category:Villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire and do you know how complete it might be? I know the present village section will need to be turned into text at some point. The villages included seem to be a fairly random selection!-- Harkey ( talk) 21:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to keep nattering at you. I just need to know whether you think the list of villages in the village section is a fairly representative selection before I try to turn it into some sort of prose. Are there any howling omissions? Thanks.-- Harkey ( talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this it?-- Harkey ( talk) 13:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the Warwick Business School should be included into the article of the University of Warwick, and should be linked to the other wikipedia article on the Warwick Business School. If the business school is not included than certainly the medical school should not be included which is the least known department. For example the article about upenn, the business school is explicitely mentioned as particularly known, as Wharton is the most famous department at upenn and other departments are not very known abroad. The same is with Warwick, the business school is the largest and most well known department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.69.66 ( talk) 13:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I made a few minor copyedits to the article to make some points clearer. Hope this is OK. As I too have little previous knowledge of the chap, I think the article is really quite neutral now.-- Harkey ( talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith. I don't know if you've spotted it yet, but Yaunchy has suddenly reappeared and moved the article back to the title of Leeds City Region, without consensus. I have not taken any action to revert his edit in the event of suggestions of edit warring. In view of his contribution history/edit summaries I am also wondering if the anon IP 90.212.254.251 is also his. Richard Harvey ( talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith, We now seem to have a newly registered editor, who has done a redirect on the
Leeds City Region Partnership article to 'Leeds City Region, even though
Harkey is working on the new
Leeds City Region article. So I have just reverted that edit. Checking his contributions I note he has also created a new article:-
Leeds city region, which is being populated from the 'LCRP' article, which I have not touched. His IP is
91.105.40.148 . He appears to be operating through an Orange / Wanadoo IP. As it seems odd for someone to come on purely with the purpose of editing that article I'm wondering if the IP is a 'Sockpuppet.' Would it be worth protecting the 'LCRP' article untill thibks are sorted out, as its getting rather confusing?
Richard Harvey (
talk)
17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, although looking at the OS squad list, it seems quite distorted; multiple players have been assigned to one number. I suspect the numbers have been updated for the new season but something's gone wrong in updating the website. Cheers, Mattythewhite ( talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Keith,
what is your issue with the tone of the comment about cycling ?
It isn't rude to the tram company or any organisation. As the article stands, without this piece the article takes an approach that is largely technical but not completely so - it also paints the picture of a entirely positive system with no disadvantages for anyone. That does not present a fair picture. In the points I am making about the consequences for cyclists I am attempting to redress the balance a little from an article that as it stands is pure promotion of the system to one that is more balanced and fair to all stakeholders.
If you can demonstrate your point about tone by changing the text I have supplied while retaining its meaning please do do. I watch with interest.
andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy422001 ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Keith - thankyou for clarifying. As I've written it now there much less emotive slant on this content. It is however necessary to shift the balance slightly. For example, your suggestion "Folding bicycles, if bagged, can to be carried on the Supertram while other types of bicycle are prohibited" *is* actually still biased - no phrase can be not biased. Compare with "Bicycles cannot be carried on the tram unless they are both folding and bagged" - the emphasis is different in each. Its important that the balance is fair because some groups are disenfranchised - for example poorer people do not generally have folding bikes because they are more expensive - it *isn't* unbiased to assume that allowing folding bikes solves the problem. Also, it generally is not possible to evidence *everything* - some things are often left unevidenced because they are self-evidently true. There is solid evidence behind all of the points made and I am in process of assembling it - though I *do* wonder how much one really needs to evidence these obvious things. In academic papers one evidences only things that are controversial and not widely accepted - everything I have written is widely accepted in cycle-campaigning circles in Sheffield as true and supported in many reports and articles.
andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy422001 ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You comment " the article is tagged and it is not controversia)". It's certainly tagged but any non-sourced material may be challenged. Since you wish to retain the 'article' as-is could you please add sources? Regards Trilobyte fossil ( talk) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Keith,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my request for support. You will recall, that I was proud to be mentioned within an article on Coventry (and as you mentioned, Woodlands School) but that the link went to an American chap of the same name.
I should very much like to take up your kind offer of help in having my biography published on Wikipedia. I clearly agree that it should not be written by myself and that it all needs verification. I would be more than happy to support this and supply any information you require.
I have a webpage which is something of a Curiculum Vitae. The link is [1]
I can supply a number of articles written about me in magazines and papers if you would like them to help verify imformation.
I also have a considerable number of photo's too.
Once again, thank you Keith for your kind offer of support. I really appreciate it. Very best regards, Kevin 213.166.17.10 ( talk) 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
kevin.reilly@hants.gov.uk
Gotcha!! Some you win, some you lose.-- Harkey ( talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just put an indefinite block on this account for trolling. You views on this block would be welcome at ANI Theresa Knott | token threats 08:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You have undone my edit about Mark's death on 2nd August. I can assure you that the information is correct as I heard the news from an assistant at his Retirement Home. Mark was an old friend of mine, the connection being via the 24th Lancers, of which he was Padre during WWII. Mark's funeral is on 9th September. Sincerely Steve Pannell. 92.2.181.29 ( talk) 08:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Keith D, I have been in contact with a user that's working on Yorkshire articles but one of his articles was deleted some time back (not sure when) and wants to do some work on it in his sandbox. I have now discovered that only admins can retrieve deleted pages so I was wandering if you could help. It is called WJ Groundwater Limited. 95jb14 ( talk) 10:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith, I intend to expand the history section a lot more and clarify the difference between the local government district and the Honour. I went over to Richmond last Friday to get a couple of the books that are mentioned in the list. (Then spent most of Saturday reading them!) I think the best thing to do with the references section for now is to hide the second part, i.e. the list of books, until I have done a bit more research, etc. Then, as I add text, I will convert them into inline citations and delete them from the list or add them as further reading. A couple are a bit erm... esoteric, to say the least.-- Harkey ( talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Keith.-- Harkey ( talk) 11:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your recent edits to this article, I wasn't aware of the MoS guidelines on ordinals in dates (which seems odd to me but not going to argue), specifying the formats if the ref' is a pdf and non-breaking spaces. You did though make a mistake with changing the punctuation to after the citation, so I'll be restoring the correct formatting for those changes. Thanks for the interest though. -- NicholasAdams ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
>Hi, thanks for correcting my error on the project for Tongue End.
Why in God's name did you revert my edit to the Market Deeping article? It's right there in the summary - "prove me wrong". Find more than one notable person and then the article can refer to "notable people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.99.65 ( talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As its the "silly season", how about somthing on Yorkshire seaside resorts? Lots of people will be visiting them over the August Bank Holiday. Is there a list or category? Is there a category on Commons for photos and maps, etc? Just a thought!-- Harkey ( talk) 12:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read your comment on its talk page and have updated the page to follow its requests. Is it enough to merit a C-class article?-- OsirisV ( talk) 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already added my thoughts to the relevant talk page, but noticed that you have been active on the page and thought I would run this past you. As far as I can see, a large list of alumni has been added as vandalism with no evidence as support. I've already deleted Tom Heaton because his inclusion is absolute nonsense. I'm also confused about the inclusion of a Nobel prize winner, which I thought I might have heard of during my time at the school. What action would you recommend? 86.135.81.220 ( talk) 10:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I can hardly believe that any of this page is notable. Many of the alumni are not even notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, so I am quite surprised to find them on the Alumni list. The Old Lincolnians link at the bottom of the page is fine, except for the fact that it is not linked in with the article at all. I can almost guarentee that the Nobel Prize winner is false, since I attended the school for seven years and they would almost certainly have wheeled out that achievement at any oppurtunity, and yet I have never heard of any such thing. Also, I think some of the awards at the bottom of the page would struggle to be called notable 86.135.81.220 ( talk) 10:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As you are one of the principle contributors to this article, I wanted to be sure you were aware that Hull City A.F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This is regarding
Template:Kosovo-note and user
User:Tadija.
Apparently there is a consensus to have the Template written in such a way, which clearly uses POV wording and a poor use of the English language.
His version says that Kosovo is "unrecognized by 130 UN member states". This is a poor use of English and is misleading. Kosovo is not "unrecognised" it is non-recognised by 130 countries. Unrecognised implies that they used to recognise and that recognition has since been withdrawn.
The wording is generally POV as it explicitly say how many countries don't recognise Kosovo before saying how many do, no where else on wiki does that. Mentioning of the Republic of China has also been removed. All this is POV INHO.
There is an apparent consensus for this on the talk page, but as you can see he has canvassed to pro Serb users who all supported his consensus, see here:
Also on the discussion page on the Kosovo note, Cinema C unilaterally declared the discussion over, despite objection to canvassing. Cinema C is one of the users Tadija canvassed to. If you look at the template history, he has continued reverting my edits even though I have explained to him on his talk page. I have also warned him about the 3RR. For some reason after I posted a warning on his talkpage regarding the 3RR, he posted one on mine even though I obviously know the rules of 3RR since I just posted it on his page. Is this trolling?
Can you please give your judgement regarding the talkpage consensus. Hopefully you will see it is not neutral and that canvassing has been biased. Could you also monitor a new consensus building please to maintain neutrality and to stop canvassing please. Regards
IJA (
talk)
22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by
ENewsBot ·
08:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I got a message I apparently edited it.
I never did. I'm not even registered to edit pages. Wasn't me Bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.217.113 ( talk) 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi KeithD, Thanks for the welcome note to Wikipedia amnd thanks for the input onto the articles I've been working on. I noted that they have moved to Start status which is gratifying. I wonder if you could perhaps give me a bit of feedback on them particularly Sambourne or Spernall of which there is not a lot moe to say as these palces are issolated hamlets really. Any feedback would be welcomed. Cheers Adrian Argrogan ( talk) 07:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith D. Please could you kindly look at the above article which various unregistered contributors have been adding to in controversial fashion. What they say may be true for all I know, but what worries me is that they are writing unsubstantiated critical comments about a living person. As I'm just an ordinary contributor myself, I've just been putting cite tags on it, but the unsubstantiated section of the article is now becoming disproportionately large. Thanks.-- Storye book ( talk) 13:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding splitting of the Leeds article. As you were involved in the previous merge discussion you might be interested in this. Quantpole ( talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Keith,
Thanks for the review of Sambourne I will try to make the corrections suggested when I get the time to do some serious editing Argrogan ( talk) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The GCSE results for The King's Academy were 73% in 2009. The article text needs to be amended to reflect this, as I have attempted to do.
The article source is www.gazettelive.co.uk/.../teesside-students-celebrate-gcse-results-84229-24545306/
Can you assist me in creating a reference for this source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.193.154 ( talk) 21:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Keith, Could you save the last referenced article from the Evening Gazette to show both pages, as the necessary reference to The King's Academy is located on the second page, not the first page that is currently showing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.193.154 ( talk) 22:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at this article and fiddled about with (sorry, revised) the text. There are quite a few references to it online, but in a different vein. Maybe you could see what you think?
I shall be away from tomorrow until Monday so I will have another go when I get back if you think it needs it. Sadly, I didn't save Teddy's Nook (what a name for a house!) so moved the text to Saltburn-by-the-Sea. Maybe it will be revived one day.-- Harkey ( talk) 20:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Now then me duck
You've added a 'contradiction' tag about eduction, and while I agree that it looks a bit odd to have references to the independent schools in both the history and governance sections I can't see an actual contraditiction.
Maybe I'm thick. I certainly didn't go to Stamford school!-- Brunnian ( talk) 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes - Wikipedia has the answer. "This organisation now comprises Stamford Junior School, a co-educational establishment for pupils aged between 2 and 11 years, Stamford School for boys aged 11–18, and Stamford High School catering for girls of the same age group." It is on the Kettering Road very close to the girls school. Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for your note, resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
Hi Keith, How are you? I see the bot is working again...glad you were able to find the fix for it. Regards, Ganeshk ( talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you have been preparing the October newsletter. It hardly seems a few days since the last one landed on my doorstep! Do you have any thoughts about a feature, yet?-- Harkey ( talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keith
Sorry not to get back to you sooner - was perhaps feeling a bit wiped out by all the stroppy argumentation re Leeds/Leeds.
Yes, Yorkshire categories are a mess... not least because "Yorkshire" doesn't currently exist (which raises an interesting question about the wikiproject - should it actually be "Yorkshire and the Humber"?!).
Looking at a category like Category:Buildings and structures in England by county, you find Category:Buildings and structures in Yorkshire. But if you go to Category:Grade II listed buildings in England by county there's Category:Grade II listed buildings in West Yorkshire. Then there's Category:Buildings and structures in Yorkshire, which really shouldn't exist.
Perhaps what's really needed is agreement (at some UK/England level?) that "... by counties" should always refer to Ceremonial counties, so that there's an unambiguous set of divisions... but the Yorkshire nationalists would throw a fit. I haven't the stomach for such a fight, but good luck to you! PamD ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I just did a GA nomination for Anne Bronte. We can but try!-- Harkey ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |