![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thank you for helping to raise Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA status -- Senra ( Talk) 01:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Richerman, Just read and enjoyed Richard Buxton which popped up in Prestwich. Happy New Year. J3Mrs ( talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I shall have to get you both library cards, Horsefield is there in the ODNB too. Do you have email, I could send it to you? J3Mrs ( talk) 21:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 11 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Buxton (botanist), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that impoverished shoemaker Richard Buxton (pictured) was illiterate at 16 but published a botanical guide at the age of 62? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Buxton (botanist).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Richerman,
Great job on the Richard Buxton article! In the future, article titles should only be disambiguated with existing articles, not potential articles, per Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines. I have retargeted the Sir Richard Buxton links.
Happy editing,
Neelix ( talk) 11:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Nob End, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lister ( 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) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The Manchester meetup is this coming Saturday (a fact to which your watchlist should alert you now I've finally remembered to put the notice up!). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Transit of Venus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gregory ( 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) 10:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc ( talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Ordsall, Greater Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermitage ( 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) 11:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll definitely take a looksee at both. I'm so very excited for the transit, and hoping to death there aren't clouds. :) Keilana| Parlez ici 01:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have left some suggestions for you at User talk:Richerman/sandbox2. Dolphin ( t) 12:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Richerman, I hope you don't mind my presumption in butting in on User:Richerman/sandbox2; I followed the link on MF's talk page which I was reading cause I had nothing worse to do. Excellent article, by the way. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
For better or worse the article has now gone live as Transit of Venus, 1639. Thanks to all of you for your help. Next stop DYK. Richerman (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The article is "owned" by two people who cannot see the forest for the trees. I entered into very lengthy discussion, making points about the "balance" of the intro, over and over again, suggesting different angles. I did not insist on my own wording but simply requested a broader view of the Queen's reign that did not hone in, within the main biographical paragraph, so minutely on the Diana affair that even the fact that the Queen stayed inside the palace for a few days got priority over matters of real significance in her reign such Falklands War and Visit to the Pope.
Iraq was just slightly more significant long term, than the fact that the dining hall at Windsor Castle was burnt out . The Blowing up of Uncle Dickie by the IRA was a little more significant than the fact that Andrew's wife split.
The upshot is that the banqueting hall is fully restored, and back in business, but Iraq is still with us. Andrew's wife still resides under the same roof, but the Reunification of Ireland, which Lord Mountbatten supported, (unbeknowns to the IRA) hasn't happened yet! So what do we get in the intro? Fire at the castle, and Andrew's divorce!
The introduction of the article is a serious embarrassment, and other people need to be sufficiently aware to see that! The point is, it is the biography of a living person. Amandajm ( talk) 13:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be (I have already recommended) a paragraph in the intro dealing with successes and another dealing with challenges. Some of the challenges of the "annus horribilis" were notable events. THe year wasn't a notable event of itself. Fire at Windsor needs to be in the body, not the Intro.
"Challenges" have included:
"Successes" have included
The arguments put forward by the two main editors have sought to counter my case for each of these remarkable events. That's OK! I suggested they came up with a different list of notable events or achievements. I was told that it was "subjective".
So, the Queen staying indoors for a few days after Diana died is major biographical event for the introduction, and the fact that the Queen, as head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, went to visit the pope, is not!
I am not suggesting for a moment that the ongoing criticism and the republican movement don't have a place in the article. The fact that there has been criticism is Intro stuff. The minor detail that the tabloids pumped up, to sensationalise the Queen's negligence in not comforting her poor subjects and their teddy ears outside the palace, doesn't need to be in the introduction. It is tabloid stuff, not major event. The inclusion of such a detail, and the expansion of sacred Diana into three separate mentions in the intro is inappropriate. The statement that over the years there has been ongoing criticism of the monarchy needs to be made.
The intro is seriously unbalanced.
Amandajm ( talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I know you're busy, and I'm sorry I have to disappear, but please have a look at Talk:Transit of Venus#Almost four which concerns a small change to the blurb which will appear on the main page in 12 hours. I can live with the change, but as I noted at the article talk, I think it should be improved since "3 1/2" is clumsy and is an unnecessary precision for the point being made. No need to reply, I just wanted to be sure you noticed the change before it goes live. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
rare astronomical event |
Thank you for building bridges to the transit of Venus as a rare event, looking at the broader perspective of other occurrences in history, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Well thank you - you're welcome. I just hope it helps to get those brilliant Lancashire astronomers a bit more recognition.
Richerman
(talk)
08:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 5 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Transit of Venus, 1639, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the transit of Venus of 1639, predicted by self-taught astronomer Jeremiah Horrocks, was only seen and recorded by himself and his friend William Crabtree? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transit of Venus, 1639. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed some of the editing activity recently related to Transit of Venus, including the request you made for that article to run again, and the new article on the 1639 transit. I've read a bit about this topic in the past, and I was wondering if you had plans to do articles on the 1761, 1769, 1874 and 1882 transits? Some of those would have enough for articles, the 1874 one in particular saw several expeditions planned and carried out, some not mentioned in the main article. I was thinking of drafting or starting one or other of those articles, but don't want to step on any toes if you have plans to do this. Also, it may be too late now (with only 17 days left), but one idea might have been to get one of the specific transit year articles through FAC and featured on 6 June, rather than the previously featured article. Not sure if Raul will agree to your request, but if he does, I think it will be only the second time this has happened (I think a US president got a second appearance in an election-day double feature). Carcharoth ( talk) 03:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Would (either of) you also be able to check the last two bullet points in the 2004 and 2012 section (which I've just read)? They seem to be talking about the same thing: (i) "Spectrographic data taken of the well-known atmosphere of Venus will be compared to studies of exoplanets whose atmospheres are thus far unknown." and (ii) "The Hubble Space Telescope used the Moon as a mirror to study the light that bounces off Venus to determine the makeup of its atmosphere. This will be a technique that astronomers could also use to study exoplanets." I thought it was the light bouncing off the Moon, not off Venus, that was being studied? Light bouncing off Venus to the Moon and then to Hubble makes no sense. Hubble was pointed at the Moon (as pointing at the Sun would damage Hubble) and the light from the Sun, passing through Venus's atmosphere, bouncing off the Moon, and to Hubble, is what was studied. Which is the same as the point made in (i), unless other telescopes were also used as well as Hubble. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) OK. I created Transit of Venus, 1874. Hopefully you and/or Keilana (or anyone else who finds the article) can help improve that. There will be lots more, including various external links, but that's all I have time for right now. I will add references later today if no-one else has done so (it will likely get tagged for that anyway at some point). Carcharoth ( talk) 08:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Venus Barnstar |
Thanks for your work on the articles about the Transit of Venus—that work puts the encyclopedia in great shape for 2117! The historic second TFA was also a great result. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC) |
Aw, shucks! and you made me a barnstar all of my own. Thank you kindly sir. Richerman (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Turing is certainly in the news today! Woz2 ( talk) 01:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
Well thank you. 250,000 hits (so far) for a 8 words on the main page was better than I thought. Richerman (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've been fiddling around with the John Horsefield article. Do you think it is worth me nominating it as a GA ? Aside from the recent listing of his tomb, there appears to be little more that can be said using sources that are easily accessible. At some point I will make a trip to Central Library but I doubt very much that there will be anything significant to add. - Sitush ( talk) 10:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
While carrying out a search of "James Percival Botanist" in the Guardian and Observer archives on the Manchester 24 hour library page I came across a couple of factoids about Horsefield. In the first article that comes up called "Another old Lancashire botanist" it says he had a son called William who was a botanist and lancashire dialect poet. In one of the other articles called 'Manchester Botanists Association' it says William (who'd just died in 1883) was a 'letter carrier' in Whitefield, which I presume means he was a postman. Richerman (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Passed the GAN]. Thanks to all of your for your guidance and your edits etc. It is much appreciated and, as I say in the wrap up, these stories need to be told. - Sitush ( talk) 23:26, 25 June 2012 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thank you for helping to raise Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA status -- Senra ( Talk) 01:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Richerman, Just read and enjoyed Richard Buxton which popped up in Prestwich. Happy New Year. J3Mrs ( talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I shall have to get you both library cards, Horsefield is there in the ODNB too. Do you have email, I could send it to you? J3Mrs ( talk) 21:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 11 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Buxton (botanist), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that impoverished shoemaker Richard Buxton (pictured) was illiterate at 16 but published a botanical guide at the age of 62? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Buxton (botanist).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Richerman,
Great job on the Richard Buxton article! In the future, article titles should only be disambiguated with existing articles, not potential articles, per Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines. I have retargeted the Sir Richard Buxton links.
Happy editing,
Neelix ( talk) 11:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Nob End, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lister ( 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) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The Manchester meetup is this coming Saturday (a fact to which your watchlist should alert you now I've finally remembered to put the notice up!). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Transit of Venus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gregory ( 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) 10:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc ( talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Ordsall, Greater Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermitage ( 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) 11:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll definitely take a looksee at both. I'm so very excited for the transit, and hoping to death there aren't clouds. :) Keilana| Parlez ici 01:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have left some suggestions for you at User talk:Richerman/sandbox2. Dolphin ( t) 12:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Richerman, I hope you don't mind my presumption in butting in on User:Richerman/sandbox2; I followed the link on MF's talk page which I was reading cause I had nothing worse to do. Excellent article, by the way. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
For better or worse the article has now gone live as Transit of Venus, 1639. Thanks to all of you for your help. Next stop DYK. Richerman (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The article is "owned" by two people who cannot see the forest for the trees. I entered into very lengthy discussion, making points about the "balance" of the intro, over and over again, suggesting different angles. I did not insist on my own wording but simply requested a broader view of the Queen's reign that did not hone in, within the main biographical paragraph, so minutely on the Diana affair that even the fact that the Queen stayed inside the palace for a few days got priority over matters of real significance in her reign such Falklands War and Visit to the Pope.
Iraq was just slightly more significant long term, than the fact that the dining hall at Windsor Castle was burnt out . The Blowing up of Uncle Dickie by the IRA was a little more significant than the fact that Andrew's wife split.
The upshot is that the banqueting hall is fully restored, and back in business, but Iraq is still with us. Andrew's wife still resides under the same roof, but the Reunification of Ireland, which Lord Mountbatten supported, (unbeknowns to the IRA) hasn't happened yet! So what do we get in the intro? Fire at the castle, and Andrew's divorce!
The introduction of the article is a serious embarrassment, and other people need to be sufficiently aware to see that! The point is, it is the biography of a living person. Amandajm ( talk) 13:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be (I have already recommended) a paragraph in the intro dealing with successes and another dealing with challenges. Some of the challenges of the "annus horribilis" were notable events. THe year wasn't a notable event of itself. Fire at Windsor needs to be in the body, not the Intro.
"Challenges" have included:
"Successes" have included
The arguments put forward by the two main editors have sought to counter my case for each of these remarkable events. That's OK! I suggested they came up with a different list of notable events or achievements. I was told that it was "subjective".
So, the Queen staying indoors for a few days after Diana died is major biographical event for the introduction, and the fact that the Queen, as head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, went to visit the pope, is not!
I am not suggesting for a moment that the ongoing criticism and the republican movement don't have a place in the article. The fact that there has been criticism is Intro stuff. The minor detail that the tabloids pumped up, to sensationalise the Queen's negligence in not comforting her poor subjects and their teddy ears outside the palace, doesn't need to be in the introduction. It is tabloid stuff, not major event. The inclusion of such a detail, and the expansion of sacred Diana into three separate mentions in the intro is inappropriate. The statement that over the years there has been ongoing criticism of the monarchy needs to be made.
The intro is seriously unbalanced.
Amandajm ( talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I know you're busy, and I'm sorry I have to disappear, but please have a look at Talk:Transit of Venus#Almost four which concerns a small change to the blurb which will appear on the main page in 12 hours. I can live with the change, but as I noted at the article talk, I think it should be improved since "3 1/2" is clumsy and is an unnecessary precision for the point being made. No need to reply, I just wanted to be sure you noticed the change before it goes live. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
rare astronomical event |
Thank you for building bridges to the transit of Venus as a rare event, looking at the broader perspective of other occurrences in history, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Well thank you - you're welcome. I just hope it helps to get those brilliant Lancashire astronomers a bit more recognition.
Richerman
(talk)
08:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 5 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Transit of Venus, 1639, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the transit of Venus of 1639, predicted by self-taught astronomer Jeremiah Horrocks, was only seen and recorded by himself and his friend William Crabtree? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transit of Venus, 1639. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed some of the editing activity recently related to Transit of Venus, including the request you made for that article to run again, and the new article on the 1639 transit. I've read a bit about this topic in the past, and I was wondering if you had plans to do articles on the 1761, 1769, 1874 and 1882 transits? Some of those would have enough for articles, the 1874 one in particular saw several expeditions planned and carried out, some not mentioned in the main article. I was thinking of drafting or starting one or other of those articles, but don't want to step on any toes if you have plans to do this. Also, it may be too late now (with only 17 days left), but one idea might have been to get one of the specific transit year articles through FAC and featured on 6 June, rather than the previously featured article. Not sure if Raul will agree to your request, but if he does, I think it will be only the second time this has happened (I think a US president got a second appearance in an election-day double feature). Carcharoth ( talk) 03:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Would (either of) you also be able to check the last two bullet points in the 2004 and 2012 section (which I've just read)? They seem to be talking about the same thing: (i) "Spectrographic data taken of the well-known atmosphere of Venus will be compared to studies of exoplanets whose atmospheres are thus far unknown." and (ii) "The Hubble Space Telescope used the Moon as a mirror to study the light that bounces off Venus to determine the makeup of its atmosphere. This will be a technique that astronomers could also use to study exoplanets." I thought it was the light bouncing off the Moon, not off Venus, that was being studied? Light bouncing off Venus to the Moon and then to Hubble makes no sense. Hubble was pointed at the Moon (as pointing at the Sun would damage Hubble) and the light from the Sun, passing through Venus's atmosphere, bouncing off the Moon, and to Hubble, is what was studied. Which is the same as the point made in (i), unless other telescopes were also used as well as Hubble. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) OK. I created Transit of Venus, 1874. Hopefully you and/or Keilana (or anyone else who finds the article) can help improve that. There will be lots more, including various external links, but that's all I have time for right now. I will add references later today if no-one else has done so (it will likely get tagged for that anyway at some point). Carcharoth ( talk) 08:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Venus Barnstar |
Thanks for your work on the articles about the Transit of Venus—that work puts the encyclopedia in great shape for 2117! The historic second TFA was also a great result. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC) |
Aw, shucks! and you made me a barnstar all of my own. Thank you kindly sir. Richerman (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Turing is certainly in the news today! Woz2 ( talk) 01:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
Well thank you. 250,000 hits (so far) for a 8 words on the main page was better than I thought. Richerman (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've been fiddling around with the John Horsefield article. Do you think it is worth me nominating it as a GA ? Aside from the recent listing of his tomb, there appears to be little more that can be said using sources that are easily accessible. At some point I will make a trip to Central Library but I doubt very much that there will be anything significant to add. - Sitush ( talk) 10:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
While carrying out a search of "James Percival Botanist" in the Guardian and Observer archives on the Manchester 24 hour library page I came across a couple of factoids about Horsefield. In the first article that comes up called "Another old Lancashire botanist" it says he had a son called William who was a botanist and lancashire dialect poet. In one of the other articles called 'Manchester Botanists Association' it says William (who'd just died in 1883) was a 'letter carrier' in Whitefield, which I presume means he was a postman. Richerman (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Passed the GAN]. Thanks to all of your for your guidance and your edits etc. It is much appreciated and, as I say in the wrap up, these stories need to be told. - Sitush ( talk) 23:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)