User talk:VinceBowdren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 11:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Peak district[edit]

Posted on the talk page in case you miss it - all the best -- Nigel (Talk) 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

SSSIs[edit]

Hi Vince - thanks for your edit to the SSSIs in S Yorks page. Do you have a citation for Ladies Spring Wood being an SSSI? The original list was taken from English Nature's website and I've checked again there and it's not listed. I know there are some errors on EN's site so this could be one. SP-KP 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - I think I've solved the mystery. English Nature seem to call this site Totley Wood - would that make sense? SP-KP 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the SSSI List to reflect this. SP-KP 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Just pop in and say welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield, It is nice to see a fellow Sheffielder editing on Wikipedia. Welcome and I hope you stay at Wikipedia. If you want any help post it on my talk page and I will help you as soon as possible. Abdullah Geelah 22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom Waits[edit]

Thank you for the many great changes you made to the Tom Waits article in the last 24 hours. Someone, and I am not entirely certain who it was, got carried away with the purple prose, and over-the-top album descriptions. Sometimes fans of a particular book, movie, album, musician, or actor are the worst people to edit articles on said topic because they cannot seem to restrain themselves and their enthusiasms, as Robert De Niro put it. Your edits are a great improvement. Thanks again. ---Charles 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your AIAV report[edit]

Ten minutes ago, you made the following report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism:

However, I have not blocked the IP because firstly, he/she has not vandalised for more than 30 minutes before you made the report; secondly, they have not been warned with the test1-test4 full series of warning templates. These templates are described in Wikipedia:Vandalism. In future, please ensure that the vandal IP/user you report has been vandalising very recently, and has also vandalised even after the test templates were placed on his/her user talk page. Regards, Kimchi.sg 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Swallows wood[edit]

Vince - Hi, it is always good to discuss issues rather than enter 'edit wars'.

I make the following points:

"The nature reserve is not a 'small copse'. It is a 60-acre site of mixed habitats. I'm still trying to work out how to make the link work well in the article, but here is a photo of one of the nature reserve's information boards which I used as my primary source for what I have written: [1] "

I know this area well having walked it for almost 25years. It is a copse. If you add the surrounding areas of fields then you could argue a 60 acre site. I noticed last year that plastic banners and litter had been strewn across the site by 'environmentalists!! <a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h22/yellowfrogs/swallowswoodvandal.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>


It is not unmanaged. When I passed through in December I noticed a fallen tree lying parallel to the path and the wall alongside, which had obviously not fallen in that place and alignment naturally. I'm afraid I don't have a citation (so I haven't made any claims in the article about the management of the nature reserve), but this was definitely a good example of woodland management in practice.

This is FAR from evidence of management. There is no biological plan, diversity in species, felling or integration of the ecotone. I beleive the site should be managed by United Utilities but since privatisation this has reduced somewhat along the whole Longdendale valley - very sad, as Crowden used to be a fantastic area for walking.


There are certainly intentions to perform new planting to mitigate the damage which will be caused by the bypass; upstream there is a field which is filled with newly-planted saplings, and the plans for the bypass itself include environmental measures ([2]) but it is misleading of you to imply that a planting and management schedule would be an easy and effective substitute for the loss of established habitats, let alone an 'improvement'.

The very fact we have a planting and management schedule implies improvement?

There is no obvious emblem on the campaign to save swallows wood website; and even if they had adopted a swallow as their emblem, it is unfair of you to take this as evidence of their ecological or historical ignorance

The emblem has now been removed under humiliation. it was well covered in the local press. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

VEB: I think this discussion would be better on the Swallows Wood article's talk page, so I have copied it to there.

The picture of the article for Buxton[edit]

Dood, that was the top of peak district. Well, we were in peak district and they told us that that was the highest mountain, so i guess that was the peak district, well, not peak district which was everything but the peak of peak district, so that's it. There was a medieval tower at the top. It was the mountain at the bottom of which you can find those caverns (btw they are nothing special and they cost a lot of money lol). If u know the name of the mountain we can add it. Onofre Bouvila 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tables; Projects[edit]

Hi,

I'd be grateful if you would look at the recent reverts on Manchester Ship Canal, Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal and Digbeth Branch Canal. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways and Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link[edit]

Can you explain why www.betterwithlabour.co.uk was removed from the NHS page whilst "Keep our NHS Public" remains there - both are political. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sm9488 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair point. On looking up the guidelines at WP:EL, it mentions at one point:

When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link.

a political campaigning website is obviously not a reliable source, but then again nor is the website of a single-issue pressure group, so I am going to remove the other link as well. --VinceBowdren 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your response. But can I question your assertion that "A political campaigning website is obviously not a reliable source". If you look closely at the website you'll find that there's absoutely nothing on there that is not cold hard fact. The data on the map is taken straight from the data that is publicly available on the Department of Health website. I can't understand how its taken to be less of a reliable source than many of the newspaper articles referred to throughout the article.Sm9488 17:23, 25 April 2007

Political parties are notorious for their bias. As noted at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution.

If the information is already available at a less politicised source (the DoH or some truly independent body) then let's source it there and include it in the article. --VinceBowdren 17:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Even if every claim on the website is indeed cold hard fact, it may exhibit bias overall by the selective inclusion of facts favourable to the case they are trying to make. --VinceBowdren 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures in Sheffield[edit]

Hi, nice work on the category tidying. However, whilst I understand you adding Category:Buildings and structures in Sheffield to the geography category, don't you think that it should also remain under the top-level Sheffield category? I would agree that architecture is part of the geography of the city, but I think that most people would not think to look in a geography category for architecture. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. On looking at the list of subcategories of Category:Sheffield, the Category:Geography of Sheffield does give a first impression of being about the physical geography of the city so having Category:Buildings and structures in Sheffield as another secondary category would be helpful. Done. --VinceBowdren 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Inactive dropdownlist.png[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Inactive dropdownlist.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Active dropdownlist.png[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Active dropdownlist.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Waits (again, apparently...)[edit]

Regarding movie roles to be mentioned in the introduction, do you really think of Tom's role in Ironweed as minor? I do not believe it needs to be included in the introduction, simply because it is not a very well-known movie (unfortunately), but is it a minor role? I deleted The Outsiders from the intro because his role in that is all of, what, 2 minutes? At any rate, it's not a big deal one way or the other, just curious about your opinion. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that his role is minor in the film or that it wasn't critically well-received; it's just that his participation in that film wasn't a very big thing in terms of his overall career, which is what the intro is all about. --VinceBowdren 17:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, which is also why I just reverted the addition of Down By Law. Again, not a minor role, but not vital in his overall career. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The Long Blondes[edit]

I have nominated Category:The Long Blondes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

thx[edit]

For fixing the Eckington pic problem ... I was called away. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --VinceBowdren (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Salad[edit]

I must be dyslexic or something because I thought I was removing the "Jonathon Salad" stuff. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll be more careful in the future. – Zntrip 00:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Now, Listen Again![edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Now, Listen Again! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article with no claim to notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)