User talk:Senra

DYK for William Jennens

Gatoclass 12:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ferret legging/GA2#GA_Reassessment

Translation of response for those interested.

• The nominator should stop denigrating the article and use common sense instead of talking nonsense. Perhaps [consider] WP:RX for The Times Wednesday, Dec 31, 1980; pg. 2; Issue 60814; col G or perhaps WP:RX for The Times, Thursday, Mar 31, 1983; pg. 12; Issue 61495; col A?

I.e. use the resource exchange to read some reliable sources

--Senra (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Centuries in Stretham

Hi Senra, I saw your reversion of my changes to Stretham. As you asked, I reviewed WP:CENTURY again, and I'm not clear on what you were intending. The changes I made seem to me to be appropriate. Help me understand. Same issue at Little Thetford. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In the featured article Little Thetford I was inconsistent in my use of hyphens between numeric centuries. For example in the lead of this version see 7th-century and 10th century. My understanding stems from the Little Thetford FAC and this discussion where Malleus explains: It's Xth-century when used as an adjective, such as Xth-century cottage, but Xth century otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 13 July 2010, Tuesday (2 years, 5 months, 18 days ago) (UTC+1). See also:

• 10 July 2010‎:7th-century to 7th century
• 22:55, 12 July 2010‎:global replace of all th cent with th-cent
• 22:59, 12 July 2010‎:finish replacing missing hyphens between Xth-century (following MF's earlier edits today - hope I'm doing the right thing here :(
• 13:57, 13 July 2010: Remove hyphens from some Xth-centrury rep[lace with Xth normal space century

I guess I have always been confused with this rule. In this particular case, I reviewed your link WP:CENTURY before reverting you. I could not find evidence for your change at WP:CENTURY. However, on reviewing Malleus's 13 July 2010 statement and your changes in the light of WP:ORDINAL I now agree with you. I have reverted my revert.

--Senra (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and clear response. My understanding is that the hyphen is used when the ordinal (20th) and "century" are used together as an adjective to describe the next word, whereas no hyphen is used when referring to the century as a noun. For example, you'd have a 15th-century house, but a house built in the 15th century. Have a happy new year. SchreiberBike (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your sub-page

I have deleted User:Senra/Breast cancer awareness as you requested. That means that the reference to it at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Trial citation style conversion has become a "redlink", but that's not a problem. You could add a note there to explain what happened, but it's not necessary because anyone interested can click the redlink and see the deletion reason "U1: User request to delete page in own userspace" and ask you if they really want to know. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you --Senra (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Colt Bloodgood

Uncle G pointed me to the same drmies talk page entry, and I started the article because it seemed interesting. A lot more could be added. You are right to query use of Ancestry.com, although it seems plausible and its J.C. Bloodgood article cites other sources. His wife's name, charitable work and year of marriage are mentioned in Mansel, Sweetland & Hughes 2009, p. 17. I put in the ancestry.com details as a holding entry to remind me to track down a better source. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Happy new year (for whenever it arrives for you) --Senra (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Senra. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not have access to that journal. My UK Library Card gives me access to everything from these Cambridgeshire County Council: Online Reference Databases including much of the Gale Journals Collection. I have checked there for your publication without success. I see you have raised your query at WP:RX. I am sorry I am unable to help further --Senra (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you anyhow.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Page move request

During the peer review of Ely and Littleport riots 1816 a reviewer, Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs), suggests that the page-title should be changed. From his suggestions, I favour Ely and Littleport riots of 1816 with a redirect from the existing Ely and Littleport riots 1816. As I have not completed many page moves with redirects, could someone help me do this please?

Move Ely and Littleport riots 1816 to Ely and Littleport riots of 1816 leaving a redirect at Ely and Littleport riots 1816

--Senra (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. As the target did not exist, you could have done this yourself: see WP:Moving a page for instructions, in case it comes up again. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Yers I know I could have done it myself but I was worried about the implications to the reviews and the GAN. Once again, thank you --Senra (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How to correctly replace a commons image

From this page I raised a request to alter an image here which has now been done. I thus have two images, the original and the new one. What happens now? Do I download the new one and upload it as a new version over the original one? What is the correct procedure please --Senra (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Or is it better just to replace the image directly in the article? --Senra (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd just replace the image directly unless there's a specific reason to get rid of the old file at the Commons. They seem to be sufficiently different that it's probably better not to overwrite the old one. Huon (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated --Senra (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You made your point

...at RFARB. Yes, Hex was partly baited. However, he's still responsible for his actions. He's also responsible for replying. We don't block for the low-level of baiting that occurred - admins are held to higher levels. Stop trying to insert a red-herring, and if you want to warn the other party for civility by baiting, feel free. However, I think they already are aware of such by now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not a red-herring to me otherwise I wouldn't be asking so strongly for clarification. However, thank you so much for taking the time to respond --Senra (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Senra. You have new messages at Dwaipayanc's talk page.
Message added 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dwaipayan (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are welcome to review the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities may give you some India-oriented perspectives, although that page is quite old and not updated. Kolkata is an Indian city article that is featured article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I just posted in the FAC page, and then saw your message. First and foremost, my sincere apologies for the ill-mannered response. Please pardon. Details in the FAC page. In a nutshell, I want you back, reviewing the article, please. Based on your recommendation, I was planning to change the structure of the article. Once again, I am sorry. Please resume. And I thought you found Torchiest's comment combative, so mentioned that in FAC. After reading your message to me, I understood you were referring to stfg. I can not comment on that. But sorry for the confusion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC page updated, please have a look. And once again I request you to come back reviewing, I am really ashamed of my behaviour.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources added in toponymy section for the view that Haider Mahal was the inspiration of the name. One additional view also added. Please see FAC.

Hyderabad was not a princely state when established in 1591. It became a Princely State during the British rule. This term is generally specific to nominally sovereign states in British India. Also, citing Everett-Hill alone may not be a good idea, as his book (2005 edition) was subject to some controversy, due to blatant error in the entry for Bangalore. I did not remove already-existing sources, since I did not add those, neither do I have access to those (the three Chicago University Press publications), although they are not books on origin of names.

Plus, I do not properly understand the use of diacritics. I have tried to incorporate those now. Please see if any further addition is needed. Do you think diacritics are needed for the name of the Caliph?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that I have formally withdrawn from the FAC review. However, as stated, please do continue to ask my advice whilst you think I can help. It is great to learn that you are willing to critique sources such as Everett-Heath. My own point on Everett-Heath is that I trust his view on toponymy rather than the other sources that are/were in the article. In any case, yesterday I fired off an email to a UK toponymist for his view on the toponymy of Hyderabad. I mentioned Everett-Heath and asked if he knew of other reliable sources. I have not yet received a reply. If/when I do you will be the second to know (after me).

Diacritics. Please note that this is my own personal view (backed up by a UK toponymist friend of mine): in a toponymy section it is my view that diacritics are important to include if they are properly sourced because it helps other toponymists. Diacritics are beyond the general reader (such as I) and should thus (in my opinion) not be used throughout an article. I rarely create such diacritics myself. I digitally copy/paste them from sources.

--Senra (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

With regret

I'm sorry that my comments at the Hyderabad FAC offended you, Senra. There were reasons why I was very upset, and they are detailed elsewhere, but I have never wished to offend you. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I accepted your apology elsewhere. Please feel free to seek my advice (for what it's worth) as I have access to some sources you may not have. Good luck with the article --Senra (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but it was Dwaipayan's apology there, and the sources would be for him or Omer123hussain. I am the copy editor who was involved. My expression of regret is the one above. --Stfg (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, sorry. I have emailed Dwaipayan a full explanation. I will send that same email to you, Stfg. Publicly, I will say that you have not directly offended me in any way. I of course read previous reviewers comments at FAC and in this particular issue I may have been unduly influenced by your (Stfg) comments elsewhere. If that is the case, I am sorry to both of you. I sincerely wish you both well and I know the article will pass through FAC at some point in the future --Senra (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Email received. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

With my thanks.

Drmies (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 3, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @813  ·  18:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How I found the review

It is still listed from those pages: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ely_and_Littleport_riots_of_1816/archive2. As for me, I came to it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Article alerts. If there is a bug, i is probably part of the Wikipedia:Article alerts, process. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Image gallery

Hi Senra, thanks for your help. I didn't want to remove anything without first checking with editors who are very experienced on the topic, like you. I just wanted to make sure guidelines were being applied properly. Btw, I believe you linked to the wrong guideline on the article's talk page. You linked to Gallery pages, which failed consensus. I think you meant to link to WP:Galleries, right? That's what you said on the Help Desk ("Consider removing the Hiram College gallery per automated review, WP:NOT and WP:Galleries then placing the removed gallery on the talk-page.") Thanks, again. --76.189.106.37 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yups. Sorry. Now fixed to WP:Galleries and you are very welcome --Senra (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem... just wanted to make sure. Btw, you fixed the link but the text still says "Gallery pages" instead of "Image galleries". :p Have a great evening. --76.189.106.37 (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

wiki editor medal

for your comment - many thanks for bothering to comment - regards - Youreallycan 01:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record I have no idea of the backstory here. I am not in any way commenting on behaviour by non administrators. I am simply observing unsanctioned uncivil, arrogant and ingratiating behaviours by those privileged editors who are not earning the trust we gave them: Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Maunus (talk · contribs) and Mathsci (talk · contribs). By not sanctioning such behaviour we are condoning it as a community and that is a very bad double-standard --Senra (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you use personal attacks to complain about personal attacks. I find it equally odd that you can't bring such matters up at the appropriate noticeboard. The VP is not the place for it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)