User talk:SimonTrew

Money laundering

Just wanted to say many thanks and mad props for editing the money laundering article. I've had it on my list of items deserving a look through, but never got around to it. So glad that someone's doing so. (Also, as a former member of the profession: yay! technical editors!) L ^talk 03:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I am sure there are still some slips in the article, after you have looked at it for too long you can't see the typos any more! But they are easy enough to iron out, I think it looks better now than it did. SimonTrew (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re model villages

Thanks for compliment Simon, was just a few tweaks to it. (Just a few million more articles to go) :) Makes a change to get thanks instead of complaints about tagging for refs or other issues. I think a few relevant images lift an article up a level, and was originally going to add a Poundbury one but the ones in the article did not appeal as giving the general look of the village (town). - Thanks BulldozerD11 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the pics really do make a big difference, I didn't add myself partly through laziness but also because of copyright etc. I would have to filch them from somewhere. So I tend to restrict myself to editing the prose. This article is just so much better now. And a thank-you never hurts you bloody miserable yorkshireman :)

I had a small concern that I put that model villages were built outside of the city. While mostly true, some of course were built around the factory itself. Was not sure how to put this concisely. SimonTrew (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I just did the easy option of going to the linked articles, but a search on Wikimedia Commons would probably yield more if people have categorised them, or used a sensible name. Any picture already on wikipedia or commons is general ok (apart from corporate logos & other copyrighted items used under a fair use rational). If you click the image it takes you to the image page were the copyright status is listed. Some Flickr images can be used if they have a certain types of creative commons licenses releasing them for use by Attribution CC by SA. (a bot checks them I think for compliance)

Be aware that a few teaks here and there and following links soon develops into a serious craving to fix mistakes and poor layout (in my case). In others the addiction is creating new articles. A wide ranging knowledge of allsorts of info can help join related articles and others together to broaden the inter linking. If you have a good library thats useful for sorting the unreferenced items out. Articles with no references can be subjected to deletion requests on grounds of no proof its true.

Dont worry about creating the Prefect article as it does not exist !! as every ones view of what it should be is different. All the small constructive edits add up to build a better article. If spelling gets you going don't follow me round as cant spell, so when spell checker acts up leave trail of errors. But each to there own and collectively it should add up to a better Wikipeidea. - Happy editing ( its highly addictive) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is very addictive. I think I have a quite broad, if shallow, knowledge. I have quite a lot of books though I had to ditch about a thousand cos I hadn't space for them so only have a few thousand left. But it is easier to look them up now online, anyway.

I really like this project Wikipedia it is what the Internet is for-- letting everyone know everything. Sure I get it wrong sometimes, at leat I am heading in the right direction.

Oh I added a German model village to the list on that page. This list is still a bit higgldy-piggledy in format.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who?

Thanks for the copyediting of The Mosquito, but the {{who?}} template is specifically meant for flagging unattributed "some people say" type quotes; it's not a "(who he? -Ed)". More examples at WP:WEASEL. Cheers. --McGeddon (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks McGeddon you can tell I am kinda new to this. I think I am not too bad at copy editing but the specific Wiki etiquette, well, that takes a little time to pick up. SimonTrew (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Function vs. Functionality

While you may hate the grammar, I suspect it's only because you don't understand the correct usage.

In computer programming the term function has a specific meaning. It's a specific sub-set of code that is called by other code. Using that term to describe an element of an application program's utility, or more correctly its functionality, is grammatically more correct, but complicates the reader's understanding of what is being discussed. Your browser has the functionality of being able to look at page history. Many sub-routines, or functions, are used in displaying that to you.

If you say that there is a bug in a function, that's easy to define and discover. If you say that there's a bug in an application program's functionality, that's more complicated.

If you say that you want me to test an application program's function, I likely would have to do it as a white box tester. To test an application program's functionality can be be done without access to the code in a black box test. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Walter I just completely disagree. There is the mathematical definition of a function, a particular computer language's definition of a function, and so on. It just seems to be that "functionality" adds no extra meaning to "function". And yes I do know what it means, I just hate it. SimonTrew (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW I find how you put that extremely patronising. SimonTrew (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And why say "usage"? What's wrong with "use"? SimonTrew (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Simon I don't follow your talk page. I'm also sorry that you felt my response was patronizing. It was definitely not meant to be patronizing. It was meant to be simple and informative. I don't think I can give you a better answer than I have above. I suggest that you look elsewhere for why these terms are used the way they are in computer science. Suffice it to say that the terms function and functionality have distinct meanings in computer science and substituting the one for the other will cause confusion for those who are trained in the field. As for use and usage, I can't even hope to help you there. I'm not a linguist and am simply parroting the way that I have seen the terms are used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Walter

Well I have only been doing computer science for 25 years so maybe it has escaped me in that time.

You are right I think they have different meanings, but not the meanings you imply. A function is a function, simple as that. Functionality is kinda a more difficult thing to describe, the totality of the functions, the sum of them, the whole look and feel. Most people who say functionality actually mean function.

Thank you for making Wikipedia better. It's a campaign of mine sometimes I win sometimes I lose, I am trying to do the same.

ObJoke: I think you have a parroty error! SimonTrew (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

Hi there. I see you're adding articles that are really more in the way of definitions of terms and expressions than they are explanations of topics. These are generally considered to be more appropriate for a dictionary (e.g., Wiktionary) than they are for Wikipedia. Can you please take a look at the article WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On the whole I agree, though I think one goes a litte farther than a simple definition. Wiktionary had no entries for them. I am right in the middle of a huge edit so wanted to make some links, which I think add hugely to the value of the Wikipedia project, but definitions didn't exist in Wiktionary so I added brief ones to Wikipedia because I hadn't the time to learn Wiktionary. I did kinda think about it first, but decided that as no definition existed in either place before, it could do no harm. They are marked for

Look up simontrew in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

also, and are categorized roughly appropriately.

My main huge edit is to Right- and left-hand traffic (currently in my sandbox at /User:SimonTrew/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic) and I am trying make it consistent, fix up a lot of links and other topics (while not WP:Overlinking. That's why I added these. In particular, because the article may be especially of interest to those outside the UK, I thought it best to define some UK terms.

I don't know if you prefer replies on my page or yours so are copying to both.

I should add maybe that I am using sandboxes etc, but one can't do everything at once!

SimonTrew (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As it happens I just looked up Off the shelf well that is no better than my definitions. That doesn't make it right but please don't bully me. Have a look at the article I am working towards first? It is listed on the discussion page. SimonTrew (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Bryson

Hi. I was following a chain of reversions the editor made that first came to my attention when he removed the James Joyce Award and University Philosophical Society patronages at Trinity College Dublin from some articles I watch. I checked the contributions list for the editor and saw a very long list that he'd purged based on it being spam, although the listings were valid honors given to the persons on the list. The other contributions by that editor before tonight were nothing like had been done now so I reverted them. They weren't spam listings in any sense of the term and the organizations were legitimate, every bit as much as the Hasty Pudding Club and their awards. Awards from a university organization aren't particularly fluff, especially prestigious ones. My actual thought was that this was someone who was either booted or not accepted into some club or society. Ack, bad faith... In any case, I put edit summaries for the first few as "not spam" but finally just reverted the rest. Thanks for noticing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression you were talking about my reverting the removal of the James Joyce Award from the Bryson article. I think you answered a query from someone else to me on my talk page? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I did, I just looked at edit history. I am now totally in a spin. I got a request to review an article which is way out of my subject area and somehow managed to cock it up in replying. Sorry about that. Yours is good. SimonTrew (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you want to look at the Zodiac Killer article, you certainly can, but honestly - I don't think you really want to!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There's always something going on around here and for the most part, if something is done, there will be an entire line of people who line up to tell you how you bungled it up. Personally, I'm seriously thinking of finding a new hobby!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah me too. There I was thinking it was supposed to be constructive. This night I just had a guy-- far enough he apologised-- who took my delete OFF an article and inserted a completely, ridiculously, incredibly wrong reference which he "found on Google in 15 seconds". Well that would be why I could not find any references to it in half an hour-- cos my son the place you are talking about is 50 miles away from where this article is based, and shares a name. That's why it took you 15 seconds you pillock. Yet he has people who worship him, it seems. I notice he this morning has "tidied up for April" i.e. got rid of the fact he had to admit he was wrong. Yeah yeah bad faith-- not bad faith, he was just plain fact wrong but didn't like saying so. When I am wrong I say so. Says it on my front user page. SimonTrew (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the way people are around here. There is an editor who routinely comes in and changes birth dates on actor bios - even when they have sources - and sticks an edit summary with it saying "goto (whatever webpage, including NNDB and Find A Death)" as his source. This week he even deleted a birth date based on someone's birth certificate and passport application and used a fan page as the source.

I'm in the midst of writing a rant on a project talk page where I had proposed removing parameters from the actor infobox, opened it for discussion and consensus and after 8 days, only 8 persons responded and all said to ditch the parameters. So I posted a request for the change and 3 days later, a couple people show to complain about it. Not that they have ever bothered to post one time on the project talk page and they were editing each day the proposal was posted. I just finished typing "I have an idea for you all who never bother to stop at this page and try to answer questions people bring in or address issues that come up - stop in sometime and actually assist with this project instead of just jumping in to complain when someone didn't come take you by the hand and beg you to read the page and offer an opinion. Try being involved on a proactive basis rather than on a "react and bitch about it" basis." Yeah, I know. But it's true and I'm too tired and too fed up not to just say it plainly for once. It is easier to complain afterwards than it is to help. What set me off was an administrator popping in to say it was a major oversight on my part to do this - despite the fact that factually, only two persons had popped in to complain specifically about it before him. I don't know, it grows tiresome!!!

I've created few articles, but I'm particularly proud of List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men that I managed to get to Featured List status. For some reason I decided to create the list during Christmas and it only took somewhere around 2 weeks from creation to FL status. I was snowed in and the cable was off. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I revised that statement before I posted it, but it felt good to type it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(Just shifting to the left to avoid inevitable right drift)

Yeah good to get it off your chest. I'll look at that article some time and bitch about it :) I really don't mind constructive criticism, perople fixing errors or making the English simpler, anything like that. I get more fed up with reversions/undos which REMOVE stuff, usually under a security blanket of "reliable sources" or whatever. Perhaps I am a liberal, but beyond people's personal blogs what is a reliable source? Is The Times a reliable source? The Guardian? Yes because it falls in What Is A Reliable Source. Whereas a company's own info page-- let's say their statements to the SEC or Companies house-- are primary sources. Well that's just stupid if taken literally. Of course one doesn't want advertising/promotion but simply to quote a company's own figures, or even its mission statement etc, if it is FACT then I don't see why we need 17 levels of indirection to establish that fact (i.e. need to get the Times to say that Widgets, Inc's mission statement is "make widgets more widgety" when it's on their own page).

Similarly with WP:OR. It was put elsewhere to me, and more elegantly than I am putting it here, that denies anybody who knows anything about a subject the ability to write anything about it. Personally I have a lot I could add to some articles on computing, which are bloody well true (cos I have developed them as part of my job so I know they work in practice) and would refute some of the nonsense in those articles, but because they are company property not published in journals I can't add them, even though they would be to the unspeakable advancement of human knowledge (Swift?). This OR thing is especially difficult with maths/computing since a mathematical proof is DEFINITELY true (assuming it is correctly constructed) and does not need a source, it is true everywhere and for all time.

I am just now going to start being harsher with undoing reversions under WP:IAR or WP:COMMON. As I say, I genuinely don't mind people changing "my" articles (they are not mine of course) and am genuinely pleased when I think hey yeah that runs better, or that sounds better, or that is organized better now, or oh that looks nice that pic this editor added.

My worst hate is when you get someone lazy who has added a minimal reference, you fill out the full reference after looking it up and checking (which is relatively laborious), then some pillock comes along and reverts it because it is "not a reliable source" or something. WHAT WAS IT BEFORE THEN YOU NUMPTY?

OK 1 each. My rant over. Back to work. SimonTrew (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Web Crawler

(Reposted here for reference - Lend) I noted you marked this as needing cleanup.

I started last night but it's gonna take some time, it's a long article. It's in my sandbox on my user page, I've put a marker how far I've got and that's just my first pass. As you say, it's not hard, but it's LONG. Will be half the size when I've finished with it.

What should I do with it then? SimonTrew (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! Welcome to Wikipedia! Be bold in your edits. Make sure you keep sourcing. You have two options. You can overwrite the old text when done. Be sure to put a note in the article's talk page about what edits you've made and perhaps why. This is an important step. Sometimes just stating rational can avoid edit wars.

Alternately, what I've seen other folks do, is do the edit in the sandbox, post a note on the article's talk page inviting comments and suggestions on your edit and once a bit of time has passed and people have had a chance to comment and make suggestions, post it. You could also solicit comments from other editors who have edited the article by commenting on their talk pages. --Lendorien (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been editing for a while so I think I know the basics.

One difficulty with this article is scrubbing the jargon. At the moment I am going really to baby talk and trying to avoid all technical terms at all where possible. This may be a bit extreme, I am not sure what the intended audience is for the article. One early, easy start is to say it's also called a spider then consistently, after that, call it a spider-- not mix the two together. As I say it is not hard to edit just LONG. It will take a few passes and will get shorter each pass.

I think yeah, I will leave it in the sandbox and get people to comment on it there. However, past experience shows that people rarely check the talk pages for an article. Then you fix put it in the main space and WOAH! Who called the army?!

I like the suggestion of putting messages on regular editors' own user talk pages, that's a good idea.

The other problem of course is if the article significantly changes while I am doing the cleanup, well hey ho that happens in any kind of software.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the talk page conundrum, but if you post there, at least people have a place to look if they have a problem. Staves off some issues at least.

In any case, I don't think that defining a term and then using it in the article is a bad idea. I know sometime people will use wiki-links to do the same thing. Example: "A black widow is a type of arachnid." We didn't define Arachnid because it's wiki-linked. If you don't know what it is, you can follow the link. Might not be a good practice with everything, especially seriously technical articles, but there you go.

The goal I think is so that a general audiance can read it without being boggled. Natually, that won't work with every article as some stuff is technical by nature. At the very least, the introduction should be general audiance accessible. That's my view of editing here for what it's worth. --Lendorien (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Newmarket railway station

Moved previous conversation to Railway stations in Newmarket article talk page SimonTrew (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Any comments on my comments/changes on the new Railway Stations in Newmarket article? It's pretty good I think. I'm glad I got that quote from Newmarket Racecouses, I am sure somebody else must already have got it (not all the info there is in the Sub Brit article), a pity they never ref'd it themselves. No matter. I think I will go get that Fen Line book today I can guarantee I am gonna need it in a day or so and it's only a quid. I am not particularly a railway nut but it's part of our history. Unfortunately these days it is only history. SimonTrew (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What diagramming tool? Just c&p into sandbox, work on it, reviewing at every change, and c&p back when finished. Re the station article, I'd say as long as someone doesn't come along and completely rip it to pieces it can't be far wrong. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well I have no problem to work out the prefixes and suffixes e x u d l r g f all that stuff pretty easily. The thing that foxes me is the name of the icon itself, there doesn't seem any reasonable notation to that, and no gallery. So far, I've just been trying to think of similar configurations elsewhere then take the definition from there, inverting or flipping as necessary. Is there no gallery of icons? I know it *says* there is, but that is so limited in scope. Perhaps I should go back to Lego. SimonTrew (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the Hitchin-Cambridge line and West Anglia line should have equal prominence, not put Hitchin as a branch. I was gonna have a go myself, and maybe will anyway, but don't want to trample your edit. After all, Cambridge-Kings Cross is the faster service (and non stop) than Cambridge-Liverpool Street. A fork and parallel lines would be good, I suppose one must "continue" one line below the other, but at least then they have pretty much equal prominence. SimonTrew (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The original icons were created by users of the German language wikipedia. Hence BHF for station (Bahnhof) etc. Of course, once other language Wikis found them, they have been adapted and extended and renamed in some cases. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah but if the actual icon names the middle three the capitals mean anything, it's eluded me so far. I just nicked them off other diagrams where I knew there would be a similar configuration (even if I had to change up/down etc). I see you have fallen in with my love of strong verticals. Harry Beck would be proud of you. SimonTrew (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete as a verb

Noticed your change to Application Programming Interface, and thought I'd point out that yes, it is in fact a verb now, at least according to the Random House dictionary. OTOH, I think it's a horrible verb, and as verbing weirds words I think avoiding it when possible is a good idea. JulesH (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is kind-of interesting on the subject, too. JulesH (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed.

But, as you say, it is bloody ugly. I don't doubt it is in some dictionaries-- all my books are packed away because I am moving, so I can't check any of mine, though I haven't Random House only Oxford, Collins, Websters, and some specialist and foreign ones, but I don't doubt you are correct.

I guess it's a bit like split infinitives etc-- they are not de facto wrong, but you don't have to make a point of using them to make others' ears hurt. My particular hate is Microsoft Outlook "Are you sure you want to permanently delete..." I have been seeing that for about 15 years now and just want to smash the screen each time. SimonTrew (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast cereal - brands

Hello SimonTrew,

Very good points – brands are mentioned in other sections of the article, and wikilinks are not as problematic as external links to company sites. I admit that I removed the content in haste, and upon closer reflection I do not object to most of it.

I very much enjoy breakfast sandwiches with egg and cheese.

Everything counts (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ghastly Uses

I read your opinion on English forms with a certain wry amusement. What's your opinion of normalcy, theoretician, close proximity and immediate aftermath?[;-)Keith-264 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that some of my dismay at other peoples' English is arbitrary - normalcy has no euphony. I can cope with theorist but 'theoretician' is grotesque. Aftermaths are immediate however long lived, since they are part of cause and effect. I fear that much of this comes from the end of teaching English as a language in America, which came before its end in England. I fear that US English has more German locutions in it, hence the large number of dreadful prefixes and suffixes. I am exercised at the moment by the increase in the use of pre- in front of words which can only refer to 'before' - 'preplanned' for example; when do you ever plan 'post'? I find that other writers usually accept my revisions because they are busy on the meat of an essay, perhaps at midnight and are too tired to see that they have strangled their syntax. Apparently the Oxford Comma is legitimate but that doesn't stop me trying to extirpate it. Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it when someone better at it than me teaches a lesson. The Oxford comma is the one before 'and' (aaargh!). I think that brackets and the semi-colon are worthy of anyone's notice. I fear that many people try to write in a conversational idiom when they would be better advised to treat written English as a dialect with separate rules.Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Motel

Actually the citations are needed in both places. If you are going in include origins of the name it needs sourcing. Yes, the citations can be the same in both articles. But we still need them. The hotel article has many issues this an while this is a minor one, that does not mean we can ignore the need for a citation here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems pointless to me to duplicate citations when it's wikilinked. SimonTrew (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

re Electric car

I'm glad you value my contribution. Really though, it was AWB that did all the hard work - I just pressed a sort of auto-fix button. You might like to try it - it handles large articles much better than a human could for the small details like the ones I fixed. Obviously, I'd be more than happy to check over the article again for you whenever. With a little improvement, I can't see why it could become a featured article. Anyway, keep up your good work with that one and long live your new(-ish) interest in this fine project as a whole. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

re refs on that article - Stakhanovite effort there. Greglocock (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there was only a couple of entries to tidy up - looking fine now, though if you do go down the FA route, let me know, I would more than happy to give it a good copy-editing. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Device

Please take more care when reverting vandalism. In this edit [1] you removed the nonsensical content but did not restore the content that had been deleted in the vandalism edit [2] - I then had to manually re-insert it [3]. Please check edit histories more carefully and use the 'undo' function when reverting completely negative edits to restore any deleted content. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Egypt and communism

Hi. Are you referring to my post on the Ethiopia-Romania AfD? If you are, there seems to have been a misunderstanding: I was actually referring to "Communist Romania and the Third World". Also, I can't say I endorse the usage of "Communist Bloc" in mainspace, especially not as something distinct from Eastern Bloc (for what it's worth, the rest should be covered in "vague" articles such as communist state).

While I commend your interest in the matter, I can't say I would consider it a good system to create a new article around the relationship between two entire blocs (the Third World and the Eastern Bloc, or similar). It's because the subjects of these articles are inextricably linked to each other's existence, and the "Eastern Bloc" etc. articles, plus others on existing interactions (i.e. Cold War) should devote special and extensive summaries of the three-way relationship. It would also be extremely hard and complicated to write and properly structure info, which, in any case it's likely to redundant - better to expand coverage in the existing ones. At a lower level, I think we could (I'm not even sure if we should) write articles about an individual Eastern Bloc country and the entire Third World, or maybe vice versa (a Third World country in relation with the entire Eastern Bloc). Also consider that, since it appears that at least some of the bilateral relations articles are going to be kept either way, "nation-to-bloc" articles would help structure the info around existing criteria.

I must say I'm puzzled by your statement that the Egypt article (which admittedly needs improvement) carries "two mentions of 'soviet' and none of 'Russia' " - are you saying that we should use Russia instead of the Soviet Union? Because, if you are, I would advise against it - Russia is the USSR's successor (and, were it not for the "tighter" article on Russian Empire, its predecessor). The terminology should link to the state, not to the entity which some argue (pertinently, but inconclusively) was still behind it.

Thank you for you time. Regards, Dahn (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done with Durance merge

I have quickly merged the 2 prior revisions, combining all new translations, because I had revised translations all the way to the end (of the article) and into fixing the footnote titles, plus correcting the Latin terms & punctuation & other typos. At this point, I will allow you to continue translations & re-add some particular footnote page numbers (if you think they are critical to sourcing). If you suspect other editors are also active, then tag the top of the article, such as

{{inuse |translating more sections for next 45 minutes}}

The Wikipedia policies still say the "{{inuse}}" tag could be used for up to 3 hours, so specify a longer time, if needed. In the merged revision, I have re-fixed the Latin words to no longer use template {{in}} which is incorrect for Latin (which uses {{lang|la...}} instead). Sorry for the edit-conflict, but removing template "{{in}}" was a major reason I edited "Durance". -Wikid77 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, personally I think the page numbers rather irrelevant, especially since if one was reading the book in French presumably one could read the original Wikipedia entry in French — it would be nice to have some kind of reference guideline for these matters, since to me it seems that though RS is still relevant, actually to expect readers to want to find a page is overly academic/pedantic, and one can always ref the original article using {{FRref|:fr:Durance|1 May 2009}}

I'm aware of the inuse template, if you put it on there I hadn't noticed: I imagine you weren't expecting anyone else to be editing it though you will see I had done a few edits before. The text is just so stodgy I can only do so much at a time, and the fact it's in different order from the original doesn't help. My first thought was that this was a pointless change by original translator but my guess is that the original has ben reorganised since. I'll try to add in any infoboxes etc. as necessary, and maybe redlink to EDF Canal, which seems fairly important (there is already a stub article for Lac de wossname that feeds it).

I find that fixing up the links, the infoboxes etc takes sometimes more time than actually just editing the text-- especially in technical articles. That being said, it probably doesn't vary much from doing the same with English-language stub articles.

I'll tb you again when I have done another pass so you can glance it over (though I imagie it's on your watchlist.)

Best wishes and keep wiki'ing! SimonTrew (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Léon Gard

Thank you for your contribution to the article Léon Gard

Thierry Gard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.87.229 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Always nice to receive a compliment. Are you related to him? If you find anything wrong, please do edit it or let me know. I found it a little tricky to translate because it is written in a very flowery, artistic language which it seems to me is more accepted on French WP than on English one. My French is not too bad but I am out of practice so I can translate French to English quite well but would not dare try the other way!

If there's any errors please let me know. I still have a couple of problems with layout there but was hoping someone with better experience of layout would fix it. I could stick all the pictures in a gallery but I quite like them flowing down the right side. I think the French one is very cramped with them both left and right-- also remember that people on small-scale devices e.g. mobile phones, they won't have to download the pictures if they are on the right (the browser shouldn't download them till they aller droit, if it has any sense).

Si vous prefere parler francais, je peut comprendre assez bien. Malheuresement mon clé ici j'ai pas les agues, cedilles etc: je peut les trouver mais c'est difficile, je le fais en ecrire les articles mais au "Parler:" Bof! Trop difficule.

Merci bien encore votre << merci >>. SimonTrew (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cher Monsieur. Léon Gard était mon père (le "Jeune homme au manteau" c'est moi). J'écris très peu et très mal l'anglais. Je suis donc incapable de relever les fautes éventuelles de traduction que vous pourriez faire. En revanche, si vous avez un doute sur le sens d'une phrase ou d'une expression en français avant de la traduire en anglais, c'est avec plaisir que je m'efforcerai de vous éclairer. L'écriture de Léon Gard est simple, claire, précise, avec des raisonnements rigoureux, mais il est vrai qu'elle comporte parfois des tournures de phrases imagées qui ne sont sans doute pas toujours faciles à traduire en anglais. Je reste à votre service pour toute question que vous auriez à me poser à ce sujet. Cordialement. Thierry Gard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.99.58 (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thierry, je ne connais rien la vie de son pere, j'ai traduit seulement. Vraiment, une vie tres interresant! C'est pas mal l'article, je pense, mais c'est difficile traduire un article << literaire >>. J'espere les bons mots sont justes; on veut cacher le sens, l'esprit etc ni pas traduire mot-par-mot, mais peut-etre on peut faire un faux-pas. J'ai essayé mettre-les a la langue originale.

Je repete, j'ai pas decouvrir son pere, je vais vister la bibliotheque mais les livres artistiques sont tres cher!

La recherche de mon francais oublié se progresse.

Salut! SimonTrew (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah je me souviens: Est-ce-que vous pensez il a besoin traduire les titres de son oevres? Je pense, c'est mieux restent-les en francais? Pensez-vous? SimonTrew (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Allan Jenkins

I would have preferred if it was just "Allan Jenkins"" rather than (footballer), but it'll do. I removed the editor from just having "Allan Jenkins" > "Allan Jenkins (journalist) as he didn't seem worthy of getting the AJ page!

Oh, and in terms of "Scottish footballer", that is correct. Scots is term for a race, and as such is a noun and not really an adjective. Salty1984 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Search

Yup, the search here is hideous. I usually use google with the site: modifier. Stubs: I don't, any more. I've accepted that my knowledge of stubs is limited to those I've already used. Somebody else can do that. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I may conceivably be TRULY drunkenly leaning on "that lamp post"

...here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Wrt ironic admissions of prejudice. What do you think? ↜Just M E here , now 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've lost me on that one. I don't understand it at all really. (I do understand what's written, literally, but not what is trying to be said.)

I tend to agree that everyone has prejudices, and I think all of us in good faith try to exclude those when we write on WP, and probably in real life too. Prejudices = opinions and everyone is entitled to them. Fortunately at WP other editors will come along later and make it more neutral. That doesn't mean, of course, that a radically prejudicial article against race or sex or whatever should be acceptable, but it does mean, in my opinion, it's almost impossible to write anything truly impartially, simply because of what you know and others don't.

For example, I don't know if you're a Mormon or not. I assume you are just because of the post there by the other contributor. If you are (or actually if you're not), I don't know if you prefer it to be Mormon or a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints or whatever. That's kinda an interesting one because nobody in their right mind is gonna say all that lot when they can say Mormon. Similarly, for example, members of the Roman Catholic Church generally are called Catholics, although "catholic" actually just means "universal"; the Anglican Church for example is actually formally a catholic (but not Catholic) church.

To take another example of implicit prejudice: the author in that post writes "cali.", "idaho" and "jersey". Well I guessed that means California, Idaho and New Jersey. The prejudice here is that everyone lives in the US: In fact I started an article Not_Every_Country_Is_The_United_States. Jersey, for example, will not mean New Jersey to a UK resident, but the largest of the Channel Islands.

So, all that kind of "prejudice" is not really prejudice in the sense anyone is actively trying to push point of view, just that they forget the world is a big place and people have different ways of using language and different meanings for things.

I went out with a Canadian for 7 years and am very aware of the simple mistakes that occur on this kind of thing. It's not the ones you get on the telly every day, it's always really stupid things, and you just have to laugh. For example when it was chilly and I wanted a jumper (sweater), she wondered why I'd want to wear a dress; and when she sent me out before Christmas to get some crackers quite naturally I came home with christmas crackers.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A very interesting response, Simon (and I'd really like to thank you for making it). People jump to a lot of conclusions from context. Only sometimes are they wrong (as in your getting the "Christmas crackers"...). Well, I'm the one who is from Cali and figured folks would know which "Jersey" I've now move to, from the context -- which is a pretty sloppy American-centric way of writing, I'm sure. Perhaps we Yanks should try to do better on that type thing, eh? (I don't really say "eh" btw. I say "huh." But, again, I've digressed.) Probably assume from context that I'm LDS; and in actuality I'm an agnostic-theist and idiosyncratically schismatic "Latter Day Saint," it's true. (Albeit one whose participation in organized religion is usually actually among Sufis. Also, see "cultural Mormon.") Are you Anglican? (Not that it matters, of course.) Cheers. (Something I say only quite occasionally in real life; instead I'd be more likely to say, "OK" or "Take care" -- or maybe "Alrighty" -- or who knows what. Again, not that it matters.) ↜Just M E here , now 13:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never been christened but I've worked closely with the church one way or another, occasionally I go to church because I find solace there, and also here we have a lot of old churches (i.e. pre-America) so I translate some stuff. My local church, for example, has gravestones dating from the 16th century and I've translated the Latin and looked up the history at Somerset House, with a friend of mine, we now have all the history from that family from that day to this. Mediǣval Latin is a little tricky.

Yes I think from context they would know which "Jersey" you meant (I certainly did) but in an article itself I think it would be better to say "New Jersey". On the other hand people can go over the top and put "New Jersey, United States, The World, The Universe" etc, which would be over the top, in my opinion.

"Yanks" is also rather odd; some UK people use it to refer to Americans in general, but strictly it only means those on the winning side of the US Civil War. It's probably a term best avoided in articles and to say "Americans". It's rather unfortunate that there is no term specifically for people from the US since of course in a broader sence an American could be a Canadian, a Mexican, a Brazilian, etc, but as you imply I think it is unlikely to be taken out of context.

I'l look up Cultural Mormon later, it will be interesting to learn about that.

PLEASE contribute more to WP cos I think it's very valuable you obviously know your stuff and other editors will come in and change things, that's part of the process, but PLEASE do contribute more.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have my allusions mixed up but your mention of not being baptised reminded me of a story I somehow have got as being attached to the Father in the old The New Yorker magazine pieces and then biographical book from the '30s "Life with Father." But, whoever is the father I'm remembering, how the story goes is that the father of household is a New York Wall Streeter and he attends to the Episcopalian church with his wife and kids but the family's father doesn't do the kneeling and standing and whatnot. Anyway, the vicar -- Which isn't what they generally call Episcopalian priests States-side, but I don't know what they do call them, so, anyway -- The vicar is concerned because the family's father isn't baptised, which isn't good (since a person doesn't go to heaven unless s/he has received this rite, the priest/pastor says... ).

You probably know this, but Episcopalians in the U.S. are considered to be culturally akin (in a very vague sort of way) to Jews. There aren't very many of them percentage wise but the ones that there are tend to be of the more educated sort. (There's a jillion Episcopalian churches here on the East Coast US. I guess they have enough people attending to keep their congregations going.) Probably there's more in Canada. (The American revolutionaries, I think, tended to confiscate Loyalists' properties and many ended up moving up there, if my vague recollections about this stuff are right.) ↜Just M E here , now 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It was not my father but my mother that struggled to get me bapstized. Fortunately she is still alive though my father died about this time last year.

I think you may be thinking of Dorothy Parker or another from the Algonquin Circle, James Thurber perhaps? I have most of their books and can easily look it up for you, but am struggling to thing exactly what you may mean.

I'm translating an article at Battle of Latrun and if you could give any help with Jewish words that would be, er, helpful.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. It was Life with Father. The memoirist's father is named "Clare" short for Clarence; and here's part of the synopsis of the movie that was made from the book:

Clare [Father] even agrees to take Clarence [the son, who is actually the memoirist who later writes these familial sketches in The New Yorker], who has developed a crush on Mary, to dinner. Later, Mary divulges that she is a Methodist, unlike the Days, who are Episcopalian. During the course of the ensuing religious discussion, it is revealed that Clare [father] has never been baptized. Vinnie [Mother, I believe] is very upset and insists that Clare rectify the oversight to ensure that they will be reunited after death, but Clare [Father] refuses, certain that God would never be so imprudent as to deny him entry into heaven.

↜Just M E here , now 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder when Jesus was up on the cross anyone said "Oh he's the spitting image of his dad. And the holy spirit, too. SimonTrew (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Category Merge

By hokey, I think you're right. I had a quick scan through Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and couldn't see any categories. I have found WP:CFD, however, which looks like the best place to handle this ("On this page, deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed"). Thinking it through, and since you mentioned that both cats have the same contents, I guess all we'd need is to delete one of the cats - but WP:CFD would be the best place to decide that.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks these things are so bleeding obvious once you know where they are! SimonTrew (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Newmarket railway stations

Hi, I noticed a bot had removed a picture from the article. Do you know where the original came from? I might be able to sort the problem out once I know why it was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info re the picture. I've restored the other Warren Hill station to the template. Looks like it was removed by someone who hadn't read the articles properly or misunderstood the situation. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just initials and surname. Here's a good bit of Dutch for you - Ik wil met uw praten waneer uw heeft teruggeven (de fiets van mijn moeder / de radio van mijn vader)! Just be careful who you say it to!! Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

MVG

Hi, I found a short article on the Munich Public Transportation Company, plus another MVG article so I restored MVG to a dab page rather than a redirect. Looks like Cambridge is having similar weather to here, but I must say I'm enjoying the cooler weather after the OTT heat we had in February. Melburnian (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, yeah it's kinda aa pound to a penny as soon as you move it you find another one (good find by the way). The fact Wikipedia search is so hopeless doesn't help. Of course I googled etc etc and I like wikilinks a lot (do you ever find yourself trying to add them on websites you don't own?) but WP could really do with a free text search. My personal bugbear is finding templates (or eventually having found them to find very badly). Oh well, we just all have to assume good faith and that WP is Not Finished and WP is Not Perfect etc. I really love working here, I am off work long time sick and it gives me a work ethic (too much sometimes). SimonTrew (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Botanic garden

Yeah, that's better. Thanks! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey! This is starting to look much better. Thanks, I really appreciate your input. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank YOU.
The more serious problem here is Botanic Garden squatting on a topic that to me seems DAB more appropriate.
SimonTrew (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. No argument from me on that. What do you want to do about it? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. Why do you need to request a move? Why not just go ahead and do it? You think it makes sense. I think it makes sense. No-one is disagreeing or arguing with us. Why not be bold and do it? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I am not sure which of "Botanic Garden", "Botanical Garden", and the various DABs come in. Obviously people have worked hard to make those categories and lists, so simply to change one to the other or whatever would, I think, be out of order. Suggest WP:RM SimonTrew (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been "otherwise occupied". Sorry. Will try to reply "real soon". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploading a logo.

When you upload a logo, please add the {{Non-free logo}} tag and Template:Logo fur, both of which I added to File:Ecc logo.png. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:C1evie.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:C1evie.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have and did, several days ago. You might as well ask the cat. SimonTrew (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Citroen C1 ev'ie

OK I am just getting used to trying to get proper image permission.

I've read all the stuff. Going to Media Copyright seems a waste of time since nobody actually answers you.

I got permission and I am sure it is all tickety boo. For it to be deleted by your bot so quickly does smell of bad faith. I am fed up of bots doing this. I got the images from the company director and he was delighted for me to use them. I added all the appropriate information. Why have a category on the image upload saying "Wikipedia Only" when it just then gets deleted? I was attempting to ensure that I'd not gone overboard with saying "free to use", though it essentially is.

I am fed up with bots here, that was only a few hours after upload, and I have full permission to use that image. You may not the edit summary said "with permission of them manufacturer" and I added full information to the upload page. If bots go round deleting things like that, it makes good faith editors like me get somewhat puzzled.

Please reply at my talk page. And I don't want a "it didn't fit the rules". I want a real human response. SimonTrew (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the overall direction of your rant is. To answer a few specific points:

• Which image are you talking about? I'm guessing that it's File:C1evie.jpg.
• What sort of permission did you get? Did you get permission to release it under a free license, and if so, which one, or did you get permission to use it on Wikipedia?
• The image hasn't been deleted, and won't be for another week.
• If we didn't have a "Wikipedia only" category, the Wikipedia-only images would get mislabeled with things like "GFDL" and "public domain", and be impossible to deal with.
• It looks like every question you've raised at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions has been answered.

--Carnildo (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No they don't answer you. They tell you to go look at X or Y. That's a non-anser. SimonTrew (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now the image in question, File:C1evie.jpg, is simply devoid of copyright - it can not be marked fair use, because anyone can take a photo of the car, even though there are not very many of them. Since you did not take that photo, it needs to be marked {{otrs pending}}. Unfortunately WP:OTRS is horribly confusing, and you are likely to go around in circles trying to find out what to do, but I believe in a nutshell you have them send an e-mail to infowikimedia.org However you will also note the lovely comment on Contact us/other, "If your question is already explained on this page or Wikipedia:Contact us, or if you don't have a good summary as the email topic and first sentence, your email may be deleted without response." 199.125.109.29 (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK we're done first pass

First pass done at Battle of Latrun.

All sections translated. No doubt lots of errors. My main worry for second pass is with the repeated references everywhere. SimonTrew (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I try to do it this WE ! (ref + second pass) :-) Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon,

Don't worry for the issues with Jaakobou or with others.

There is an edit war on Exodus from Lydda and we lose much time with this.

I have not taken the time to read your work on Latrun but that is definitely the most important for me !!! and I want to review this with the highest attention and care :-)

See you soon, :-) Ceedjee (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, best wishes. There are probably some very obvious mistakes and I am not sure how we can resolve those most easily. Like, obviously, I have tried to translate into plain English but if I have made a factual mistake that needs to be corrected. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You did good job !

That is really not easy at all.

I corrected some factual mistakes (indeed) but I am not sure my correction is... written in good English... (here).

I suggest I tried to finish the full historiography section of the article and that you have a 3rd pass on it !

I will also ask some reinforcements to help us :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to front

Ceedjee mon ami

One of your biggest faults in translation is forgetting English word order tends to put the adjective before the noun (as always there are exceptions) and that you use the definite article "the" too much which we would not do. I think those two changes would make your English a lot better very easily.

You write English well. I hope you treat this as constructive criticsm. SimonTrew (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Simon,

I appreciate any comment that will help me improving the way I speak and write in English ! :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think on the whole the French tends to be more inflated than the English. I don't just mean this one article but in general. I find it difficult to to French that way. We will just say "story" or "history" and here it's "historyography", a word that probably exists in English but would never be seen in real life, not even in a formal academic article (which this is, in a sense).

Thoreau said simplify, simplify.

I am a bit unsure about "collective memory" too. While this term exists and indeed has its own article (which I've linked to) I am not sure it is covering quite the same sense as what you mean in the original, but can't think of anything better. SimonTrew (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For example you will say "the tail of the horse" instead of "the horse's tail". Just a made-up example, to make the point. SimonTrew (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Battles of Latrun

No problem, I saw your notice at the WP Palestine project talk page. I'll continue to copyedit the article whenever I can. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi SimonTrew! I know the word because it exists in Russian, but have never seen it used in English, so I checked a dictionary. It does not appear to exist. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:C1evie.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:C1evie.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The image is tagged with {{non-free logo}}, but it is clearly not a logo. —teb728 t c 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this and nobody has told me how to do this. None of the help tells me how to do this (there is no doubt an article somewhere that only people who know how to do it already know about). PLEASE JUST TELL US. I asked this at Copyright Questions. I asked it at Image Upload. I asked it at MoS. JUST TELL US. SimonTrew (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As a committed editor on WP this is one of the most frustrating things. If you don't know how to find something, you can't find it. SimonTrew (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wagmag

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wagmag, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

An article about a magazine of unclear notability. None of the sources cited even mention "wagmag", let alone discuss the magazine in any detail.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mosmof (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is news to me - where does it say that cleanup templates should be on the talk page? In fact, it says explicitly in WP:TC, "Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article", and it seems strange that a template meant to be placed in the talk page would contain a wikilink to the talk page. Templates meant for talk pages are listed here. I'm going to put the article issues template back at the top of the article.

Also, I didn't realize that the article has survived a PROD (I look for the {{oldprodfull}} message in the talk page before nominating, but it seems none was added after the first PROD). I'll nominate the article for AFD instead. --Mosmof (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit I came off snippy and that wasn't my intent. I apologize for the tone. But to explain - the only reason I pointed you to that WP links was because you told me that the MOS says the templates are meant to be on the talk page, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't mistaken.

Anyway, yes, I realize that you've put work into the article, but frankly, I don't think it's an article that's worth putting a lot of energy into. I'm perfectly happy to help (and have done so) build articles covering subjects of real notoriety that hasn't received enough TLC. But part of building a quality encyclopedia is cutting out trivial subjects that shouldn't be here. Mosmof (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that concerned about "real notoriety", per se, so a dictionary definition wouldn't do me much good. I'm just dealing with notability as defined in Wikipedia's terms. Not that I'm being a stickler about rules - I think WP:N is a good test, both for measuring a subject's importance to third parties, and for creating articles with good, verifiable sources. None of the sources provided in the article indicate importance for the subject, and quick Googling doesn't give me a whole lot to base an article off. Mosmof (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you don't know what notoriety means why say it? SimonTrew (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't know what notoriety meant, just that I'm more concerned about Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Mosmof (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but thank you. And I apologize for being not so friendly myself. Mosmof (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pesky kids in the electric car

You're not bothering me. I'm with you 100%; 'kids' is not encyclopedic. I would make it 'children', and add a break in the last column header, between 'Market' and 'release date' It looks OK on my browser. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

One more question

Are you pro or anti the hymn or anthem "Jerusalem!" (And why?)

1. The Times wrt song's ban at some cathedrals
2. 2008 BBC Proms
3. Monty Python
4. Chariots of Fire

↜Just M E here , now 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a great hymn/anthem/poem. I think Billy Bragg sings it best.

As far as i see it, it's a satire. "And did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's pastures green"? Well, no, not, actually. "And was the holy lamb of God on England's pleasant pastures seen?" Nope. "And did the Countenance divine shine forth upon these clouded hills?" Nay, nay and thrice nay. "And was Jerusalem builded here, amongst these dark satanic mills?" Need I say more?

It's a beautiful poem, and Blake seems quite an agnostic or atheist at the best of times, but it is pure satire and invective. How it ended up as becoming kinda the English national anthem beggars belief-- it just lends credence to the stupidity of the English middle classes.

Is that a reasonable first answer? SimonTrew (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How it became a sort of English national anthem: According to its WPæida article, it was an uncelebrated poem by Blake that happened to show up in a patriotic anthology toward the end of WW1, then a musical arrangement, specifically requested to be easy to sing, was requested of "Parry" by your -- I mean your country's -- then poet laureate (whose name I forget). And it was a big hit.

I dig your ironic reading, Simon. Of course, historically, Monsier Blake actually likely believed Jesus HAD possibly come to England to "seed" His divine teachings (thus the poem would be noting the industrial squalors while looking back with yearning at England's former pastoral eras and her "annointing" [as it's a current fashion among some Evangelicals, here, to call it] for non-ironic, "New Jerusalem-ic" glory!

1. Are you familiar with the Battle Hymn of the Republic? "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord....": Millennialism was a huge undercurrent here just previous/during our Civil War. era. "We" Mormons thought Him coming any moment. We were very majorly doing our own Zionist/Taliban-ish thing then, in the Territory of Utah. (Seems quite normal and, at the same time, somewhat odd for me to say we when talking about the LDS, btw; they would be somewhat reluctant to claim me as one of their number, I think -- since I am no longer practicing or believing, the two most important parameters delineating their boundaries of community.)
   Here's the version by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (of course! lol; and accomanied by clips from war movies):
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFh0oy6vIt4
   
   
2. Meanwhile here's some images used non-ironically in-house in Rumsfield's War Dept.:
   
   http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
   
   
3. Finally, we turn to an anthem used by the LDS that was composed in 1844 and matched to a particular tune, Star of the East -- which, however, was soon thereafter switched to that of a Scottish tune that's now generally called "Scotland the Brave." Here is sort of a recreation of the actual page the poem was first printed on (of the main newspaper printed by the early Mormon -- well, yes -- cult):

---

POETRY.For the Times and Seasons.

July 27, 1844.

JOSEPH SMITH.

Praise to the man who comun'd with Jehovah,

Jesus' anointed "that Prophet and Seer."

Blessed to open the last dispensation;-

Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

CHORUS-Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!

Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.

Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren,

Death cannot conquer the hero again.

Praise to his mem'ry, he died as a martyr;

Honor'd and blest be his ever great name;

Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,

Stain Illinois, while the earth lauds his fame. CHORUS-Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven, &c.

Great is his glory, and endless his priesthood,

Ever and ever the keys he will hold;

Faithful and true he will enter his kingdom,

Crown'd in the midst of the prophets of old. CHORUS-Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven, &c.

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;

Earth must atone for the blood of that man!

Wake up the world for the conflict of justice,

Millions shall know "brother Joseph" again. CHORUS-Hail to the prophet, &c.

The Times and Seasons,

Is printed and Published about the first and fifteenth of every month, on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by

JOHN TAYLOR,EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

TERMS-Two Dollars per annum, payable in all cases in advance. Any persons procuring five new subscribers, and forwarding us Ten Dollars current money, shall receive one volume gratis. All letters must be addressed to John Taylor, editor, POST PAID, or they will not receive attention.

---

And here's the video; and -- sorry to make it complicated to listen to but -- please drag the button over to 1.00 to skip the video's first minute full of the performer, an Idaho student named Owen Kent's, self-mocking mugging:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNWhqGri9_I&feature=channel_page . ↜Just M E here , now 04:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Simon. I listened to "Lillibulero" and even looked up the etymology of taig. (It is said to come from the Gaelic Tadhg, meaning "Tim," with the implied meaning, I suppose, of "a Gaelic joe.") Eighteenth centrury redcoats used a similar mocking term, that was also ultimately derived in part from a given- or firstname, for the colonial republican rebels (or "the sons of liberty," depending... ) not, this time, of Ireland but of North America. It was Janqui. The Online Etymology Dictionary:

  Yankee   1683, a name applied disparagingly by Du. settlers in New Amsterdam (New York) to English colonists in neighboring Connecticut. It may be from Du. Janke, lit. "Little John," dim. of common personal name Jan; or it may be from Jan Kes familiar form of "John Cornelius," or perhaps an alt. of Jan Kees, dial. variant of Jan Kaas, lit. "John Cheese," the generic nickname the Flemings used for Dutchmen. It originally seems to have been applied insultingly to Dutch, especially freebooters, before they turned around and slapped it on the English. A less-likely theory is that it represents some southern New England Algonquian language mangling of English. In Eng. a term of contempt (1750s) before its use as a general term for "native of New England" (1765); during the American Revolution it became a disparaging British word for all American native or inhabitants. Shortened form Yank in reference to "an American" first recorded 1778.

  "Yankee Doodle went to town, riding on a pony, stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni!" ↜Just M E here , now 20:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Electric car

I replied to your post on my talk page at User talk:TEB728#Electric car. —teb728 t c 07:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I left you another reply on my talk page. But as an afterthought, it seems to me that the reason we are not communicating well might be that perhaps you don’t understand what free use means on Wikipedia. It doesn’t mean free of cost but free of restrictions. The only restrictions that Wikipedia accepts are a requirement for proper attribution and/or a requirement that derivative images be licensed under a compatible license. —teb728 t c 00:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:C1evie.jpg

This file has been deleted because there is no verification of permission. Please send any permission you have to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If it is valid, the image will be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

response

Given that most talk page comments (wikipedia wide) are anlong the lines of 'You're Wrong!!!', the occasional thank you is always most appreciated. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AE vs. BE

Talk:Old_age#the_hair_color_gray
Canadians are not the only people to use British spelling. In fact some linguists and lexicographers claim that worldwide, BE might just have the greater number of users. It is well to remember that the WP is is an international effort even if the majority of editors might be US Americans.
The usual procedure, as for example in the Encyclopedia Britannica, is to retain the orthography of the original contributor. In the Wiki, therefore, either AE or BE can be used, but the style should preferably be consistent throughout. Anyone attempting a major copyedit, (something that most Wikipedians appear to loathe to undertake) could bear this in mind. --Kudpung (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point: that "color" is spelt in US English and "grey" in British English.

I am aware of the Wikipedia style guidenlines, sheesh I am English, I went out with a Canadian for seven years, and I lived in Texas for two of them. My point here was that it is (or was at the time of writing) inconsistent in the artcle. SimonTrew (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and my main point was that we, as regular WP editors, could undertake any such cleanups on the fly without any further ado when visiting pages. The Old age article, remains neverthless, extremely Americo-centric in its content, something which WP advises against for general topics. I am not knowledgeable enough (as a British 'senior citizen' in exile) to contribute to that article.--Kudpung (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you about "just do it" (or "be bold") -- but it's sometimes I think more diplomatic to ask first, depending on what else has been happening on the article. Just a judgment call. SimonTrew (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, SimonTrew. You have new messages at 199.125.109.29's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.