User talk:Bleaney/Archive 2009
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bleaney. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 2005 | ← | Archive 2007 | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 |
Cheshire project new articles list
Hi Bleaney -- thanks for notifying the project about Risley (HM Prison). In future, could you add new articles above (or below for stubs) the note about the portal, please. That way they don't miss out on being featured in the new articles section of the Cheshire Portal. Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Ranby (HM Prison)
|
On January 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ranby (HM Prison), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.
Ikip (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Bedfordshire et al
Hello, thanks for your message. You asked a good question, so I had a look at the policies that seem to cover this.
There is a policy for counties at WP:UKCOUNTIES, which states under "additional subpages" that the places of interest should not be on the main county page but on List of places in Bedfordshire
which lists all of the settlements in the county, and a separate section lists places of interest, such as tourist attractions
So what we could do is copy and paste all the current Beds stuff into that page. We could then simply link List of places in Bedfordshire from the "See also" section of Bedfordshire, Central Beds, Bedford (borough) and Luton, which would save a lot of work....
I think the pages for the unitaries fall under WP:UKCITIES which has a list of prescribed headings. "Places of interest" is not one of them.
What do you think?
Lozleader (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Central Beds, per the local government legislation, will be a "county for which there is no county council and in which there is not more than one district"! AFAIK the term "unitary authority" has no legal status. The structural order states:
A new county and a new district, both to be known as Central Bedfordshire, are created for the same area as the existing districts of Mid and South Bedfordshire. A new district council, the Central Bedfordshire Council, is created for the new district and will be the sole principal authority for the district. There will be no county council for the new county.[1]
- Which means that you could legitimately use either infobox! I would go with the district infobox: on looking at the Cheshire East and CWC articles, there is an empty "Districts" section that comes as part of the county box, although I think this can be removed. Lozleader (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow.. you have been busy over the past few days! Thanks for all your hard work on Bedfordshire, I'm sure lots of people really appreciate all the work you put in (I certainly do!). Shritwod (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Bleaney, since your creating a lot of television channel articles perhaps you would like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's a fairly simple one, all of the UK television service provider's channel lists are either based off List of channels on Sky Digital in the UK and Ireland or editied to be similar to it. This issue was raised on List of channels on Virgin TV and the section was renamed as Channels removed from Virgin TV. I'll make the change to the Freesat page now, thank you for pointing that out. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Boys Town (juvenile detention centre)
Hi, My name is Pat Thoms & im a youth worker at Boys town Engadine.
I would like to request that the tittle be changed for "Boys Town" Engadine (juvenile detention centre)
Boys town Engadine is far from a Detention centre, It is a voluntary service for families at risk of family breakdown, who are committed to improving their relationships, Boys/family choose to be a part of the program & are not forced or advised by courts/laws.
Could it be changed to something like...
Boys Town (residential school for boys with behavioural issues) or
Boys Town (Residential Family Preservation and Restoration)
Thanks Pat Thoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.46.212 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are still not using the edit summary. Are you purposefully ignoring this? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
North and Middle Littleton
Hi Bleaney/Archive 2009! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing a little attention, updating, or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:North and Middle Littleton--Kudpung (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
B4U (network)
"world's leading", "a leading brand", "strong presence" are examples of the advertisement feel of the article as a whole. Do not remove the template until it is rewritten in an unbiased fashion and reviewed by a third party. Because you created the article it looks like babysitting or ownership when you remove tags without addressing the problem. You've done this in the past. æronphonehome 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry!
Sorry about the mix up over the user page and talk page - my ignorance. C0pernicus (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad!
Hi, Bleaney, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 02:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||||||
July 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Northamptonshire
Hi Bleaney/Archive 2009! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. (This is a generic message. if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)
| The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | |||||
Pitch TV & Pitch World
Although the parent company has gone into liquidation, the channels still continue to broadcast JML content as Skyisthebest pointed out on List of channels on Sky Digital and the edits I made to both of the channel pages. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
 This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of King's House, Jamaica, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.kingshousemedhelp.com/gov/history.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The source says:
The source says:
If you look at those side by side, it may be a bit easier to see where the problem lies. I've bolded the text that is duplicated in the source quote to highlight this. While the facts are not copyrightable, the manner of expression them (including what facts are chosen and the order in which they are represented) are. This run of text is far too close to the original to establish a new copyright. I often find it helpful myself to reorganize material, as revising sentence by sentence can be challenging. For instance, I might say:
It can be a pain in the neck having to put text into your own words, but most text--even if seems fairly straightforward--features enough creativity to earn the protection of US copyright laws which govern Wikipedia. (If you like any of the text in my example, you are welcome to use it without attribution. I waive that right. :))--Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
←I have moved the temporary page to replace State House (Seychelles). Thank you. The other one gives me an opportunity to point out a bit more what is meant by rewriting. The article says, "The present King’s House has a very similar structural appearance to the house after reconstruction in 1907." This sentence is copied verbatim from the source. Very simple sentences presenting basic information straightforwardly (ex. "Edward IV was born on 28 April 1442.") are not copyrightable, but most sentences--including that one--are. They can only be reproduced in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline, with direct quotation and citation (in limited amount and circumstances). You can certainly include that fact, but you must put it in your own words. For example, "Although the building was reconstructed in 1907, it retained much the same structure." Other than that one, remaining artifact from the source, I believe that this temporary page is in good shape. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
←Up to C now. Colesden and Cognita will need rewriting as they contain multiple sentences from the tagged sources. Chawston needs rewriting in the first & third paragraphs of the blanked section. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
←If you're interested in expanding it, there's more information on Drake Hall here. (It came up on a text string search, but has a lot more than the official site.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
←And as an MRG talk page lurker, hats off to you, Bleaney, for taking copyright concerns on board & going back through your articles. It does you great credit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
←Found what looks to be (fairly conclusively) another case of somebody using your words. See Talk:John Bunyan Upper School for details. I'm not moving as quickly on this as I'd like; sorry! I'll try to get to the next letter before the end of the day. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Condensing what they have, even if you elaborate in some places, remains a derivative work.
←Wanted to let you know that in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, you should attribute when you incorporate text from public domain sources. I've done so in the article Newry Cathedral. That text doesn't have to be removed, since it is not a copyright violation. (The source is too old, and copyright has lapsed.) You do need to be careful, though, since using a 1909 source has made it inaccurate. It says, "The seat of the cathedral, however, was transferred some two hundred years ago," but this text is already 100 years old. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
"Building work began in March 2007, but was suspended because planning permission had not been granted by Medway council, the local planning authority." With the source: "Building work began in March 2007, but was suspended because planning permission had not yet been granted by the council." This is identical in structure and almost identical in language. You can stick a little closer to the source if you are paraphrasing within the text. You could, for example, say, "According to the BBC, the building that had begun in March 2007 had to be suspended pending permission from Medway council, the local planning authority." Without such inline attribution, you can't even stick that close.
"In March 2007, it was announced that the capacity of Rochester Prison was to be doubled to 700. This drew severe opposition from local residents.[1] As of July 2008, the project—on which construction had briefly begun in March 2007—was on hold pending permission from Medway council, the local planning authority."
Compare it to the article's sentence: "Sir John died suddenly, and Tillie promptly married his widow Elizabeth, greatly improving his wealth." This is pretty much an abridgment (a specific type of derivative work: "Sir John died, unexpectedly...and James promptly married his widow Elizabeth...greatly improved James’ wealth"
"...as a result, Pentillie was completely rebuilt in 1810, with the construction of an additional three new wings that formed a central courtyard to the west side of the original structure." This remains very close in structure and language to the the source, which says: "As a result, Pentillie was completely rebuilt with the addition of three wings to form a central courtyard on the west side of the original house."
Compare this passage:
"in response to an overwhelming demand for places" → "in response to increasing demand for places" "shortage of places was so dire that it was a stumbling block for companies looking to bring in expatriate employees and their families." → "shortage of international school places was said to be a problem for expatriate employees working for companies in Singapore and their families."
"The government of Singapore made this move in part to address the need of businesses seeking to recruit employees from other countries. Potential hires were reluctant to take work where so few places existed in international schools to serve their children."
The rewrite:
Good direction, but what you're trying to do is change, replace & cut words, which can be a real losing battle. You still have the same structure, which in itself can be a copyrightable element.
"The Stamford American International School (SAIS) will offer a United States style school curriculum with incorporated international school style elements to students between the ages of 3 and 18."
←Okay, let's talk about the first sentence. "Although a Collegiate church is recorded on this site in 1066, the present church was first constucted in the early 13th century, however an Early English south porch is all that remains visible from this time." The source says, "There was a church on the site by 1066.... The present church was started in the first part of the 13th century. ...With numerous alterations little remains visible from this period apart from the South porch." I'm afraid this follows too closely. Although you've cut some detail, what you've got there is basically an abridgment of the source. It's the same basic structure with some of the same language, particularly in the last bit. Taking your text: "the present church was Early 20th century work to the church includes the Rood screen (designed by George Frederick Bodley), the English Altar and altar rails (designed by the Bromsgrove Guild), and restoration work to the Trinity Chapel (instituted by C. E. Mallows). During the Second World War (from 1941), the BBC used the church to broadcast the Daily Service. This led to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York saying mass together at St. Paul's in a live broadcast. The Roman Catholic Cardinal Arthur Hinsley also preached here during this time (See Corn Exchange, Bedford). The church underwent another major round of restoration work and improvements from the mid 1970s. The work culminated with the addition of two engraved glass doors in 1982.[2] I believe the last paragraph of that section may also follow somewhat too closely:
The source says:
Remember, the best approach here is not to just cut out some words and alter or add a few (which leaves you with stuff like "The Roman Catholic Cardinal Arthur Hinsley also preached here during this time", a thin alteration of "the Roman Catholic Cardinal Hinsley preached here". It's best to comprehend the section and overhaul it completely. You might wind up with something more like:
Again, you are free to use that if you want, but I'm not offering it up as a "do it my way or else!" kind of thing. It's really just meant to illustrate my suggestions. Other than these two sections, the revision seems good to me. As we are getting very close to the end of the articles in question, I would like to nail this down so that we can move forward without concerns for future articles. I think you are definitely doing better with rewriting, and these articles (which you indicated were particularly challenging) are good opportunities to address any lingering concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Computerjoe's talk 07:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thames Valley University
disagree here. Which of the 4 TVU campuses is the "main" one and where's your source? TVU has no "main campus", it has 2 in London (Ealing and Brentford) and 2 in Berkshire (Reading and Slough, the latter of which is about to close in 2010). Neither campus is a "main" campus, they all have their faculties which operate separately, e.g, the London College of Music and Media at the Ealing campus while the Nursing school operates from Brentford. Basically, it should be listed as a London university. - filelakeshoe 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Coords
First, excellent work spotting the Norfolk error. My very bad :).
I tend to use multimap to find coords, mainly 'cos I'm concerned with the UK and multimap offer an Ordnance Survey map layer, which tends to have the detail I'm after. I'll tend to search for postcodes (i.e. get a postcode from the school website, put it into multimap's search box) if I'm dealing with a school of college. (And then play around in the OS or aerial view until I'm happy that I've found the location). Direct search by name can be done for villages, and are (mostly) successful. Other buildings and structures can normally be tracked down from the article description. Parishes can be roughly determined from finding the constituent villages/districts, if the article specifies these. For larger entities such as a parish, we're interested in a rough centre point.
Having found your entity, a right click on the entity and use of "Move map to here" produces coords in DMS or decimal at the bottom right of the multimap screen. If the entity is quite large (e.g. a forest) I'll use DMS. If I want to ensure the arrow points exactly to a building, I'll use decimal, since (I forget) seconds in DMS at UK latitudes are about 30 metres, meaning the arrow can entirely miss the building.
There's only a little voodoo associated with the {{coord}} template, best understood by checking out the documentation and existing uses of coord - e.g. check out my contributions history, since I list for format of coord used in each article I've coorded. The type: parameter essentially drives scaling of the map. The region:GB parameter causes the geohack tool to show UK-only maps. The dim: parameter allows some more control over the size of map shown on the screen, useful for parishes, districts, local authorities etc, where we're trying to bound the actual shape within the rectangle of the map window.
Umm. Hope that's enough of a flavour. I'd be eternally grateful for more input to the backlog of articles listed from Category talk:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data. If you want anymore input from me, give me a shout. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what's happening, but presume it is at your end / a glitch with the geohack conversion to the map you used. On my machine the coords point to a Great Denham just west of Bedford, via multimap or google.
- Cowlidge is 52.16161N 0.50417E. My (second) Great Denham coords were 52.1386N 0.50966W ... so whatever is happening is connected with reflection in the meridian. The history shows that I did point to the West, not the East; and AFAIK all Suffolk coords are in the East.
- Which map were you using to view the coords, and was it based in a click-through of the coords, or a by-hand check? Anyway, I've updated the coord after deciding I was pointing to Biddenham rather than Great Denham.
- I'm sure we'll get there in the end. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bleaney
Hi, and welcome to the EastEnders WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of EastEnders.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Please participate in any of our parent WikiProjects that might interest you.
- The project has a bimonthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered in its entirety, but several other formats are available.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every EastEnders-related article in Wikipedia.
- Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Cathedral maps in info boxes
I hate those cathedral boxes!
Please note: whenever you make an info box longer, it forces down any picture that is below it. If the pic is fixed within a section, rather than floating, then all the text that is below it also gets forced down This can make a gap in the text that is as deep as the object that you have just inserted, in the case of a map, the gap you create can be 2 inches deep, or more, if as in the case of Birmingham, you put the map in at a large size. The fact that text becomes split or orphaned from its heading is usually only apparent if your screen is wide format. If you are viewing on a narrow screen, then there may appear to be plenty of extra room.
If you have added these maps to a number of other cathedrals that I don't happen to be watching, then someone will need to do the necessary adjustments. I have been removing surplus lists of staff, which are quite unnecessary in the info box; they just take up rooom that is useful for other things. Amandajm (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just looked at worcester. Making the map wider than the pic above it both looks ugly and accentuates the problem. Amandajm (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have left Winchester Cathedral just as it is, because the layout is a stuff-up, even when viewed on a narrow screen. You can see the problem. I'll get back and rearrange it later. Amandajm (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Maps
User:Charlesdrakew has just removed the map from Chichester Cathedral with the comment that anyone who wants to know its location will simply click the link to Chichester. How clever of him to point this out! Now, if the map showed the precise location of each cathedral in its town, then there would be a case to keep them. But it doesn't. So there's really no point. The maps simply make an already over-large box unnecessarily larger. There is not point in doubling up on info that is (or should be) already satisfactorily dealt with on the town's page in each case. Amandajm (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Re the "section for maps" in info boxes. I am aware that the facility is there. There is also a place for every last single employee of the cathedral and every single possible dimension. It is all too much. There has been considerable dispute over the boxes. The three headings, one entitled "Basic information" are fairly crass. The Church info box is actually better than the cathedral info box.
- The Wikipedia links work effectively for things like location. Every Cathedral has the city name as part of its title. If you can find the city, then you don't need a map of the county showing where the city is that the cathedral is located in. The map tells you nothing very useful except that the cathedral is in a particular town in a particular county, but you know that anyway. There is no need to double up on basic stuff that can be found out by clicking on the town.
- The question is, what is sacrificed for the sake of the map? We are dealing here with England's most historically and architecturally significant buildings. A big map and a long list of present clergy appointments means that there is no room for an historic image, (unless it is sandwiching the text down the left side) and often no room for a really good architectural image. At every single cathedral the writer of the article has to chose what pictures can be left out. It's a difficult choice, because ever single English cathedral is so varied in its architecture and so full of treasures (stained glass, woodcarving, stone carving, metalwork, modern sculpture, vestments, books, documents, religious vessels).
- I would rather do away with cathedral info-boxes altogether because they have very little use. All the key information is contained in the first paragraph of the introduction (or should be, if the article is reasonably well written). The information boxes are problematic and often misleading when it comes to the architecture. In the case of Winchester Cathedral for example, I have here a list of dates ranging from the 7th century to 1912, and there has been a more recent restoration. Trying to put a definitive date in the info box is meaningless. Likewise there is a list of ten architects who built various parts of Winchester Cathedral, but the architects of three important sections, including the west front, are unknown. I see no point in a list of people called Hugh Mason and William of Winchester etc. No-one knows who they are. Put in context, they are relevant: eg. "The crypt and transepts were built by Hugh Mason between 1079-93" (most of the master builders were called John, William, Richard or Hugh Mason and many of the others were called William of Winchester, John of Gloucester or Jeffrey of Southwell. None-the-less, because there are spaces for all this stuff in that info box, anyone could add a long lists of these master builders and insist it was justified, even though it informs the reader of virtually nothing.)
- What we have here is a balancing act concerning the relative importance. As I see it, cathedral-specific information belongs on the cathedral's specific site. There are very few places on Wikipedia to put a photo of the glorious vault of Wnchester's nave, except the Winchester cathedral article. If we have to chose between the vault and the map, or the side view showing the whole 560 foot length and the map, or the south transept and the map, or the west window full of medieval glass and the map, or the reredos and the map, or the crypt statue and the map, or the magnificent Restoration altar rails and the map, then in every single case the pictorial information is of greater significance than the map, simply because one only has to click Winchester to find the map, exactly where one would expect it to be. As you can see, a number of other contributors to cathedral articles feel exactly the same way about it.
- Amandajm (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! As for being a purist and wanting to fill the spaces, the info boxes were designed by an editor with whom I argued at the time that the long list of info fields was counterproductive, but he did it anyway. I do feel like removing the whole lot, but someone will put them back. Amandajm (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider...
Would you consider helping with new community website for Shortstown village, which I will be starting within next few weeks? Shortstown is going downhill at the moment and I just want to give something to people to identify themselfs with. Therefore I'm looking for volonteers whos firt language is english ( As mine isn't) to help me out build this community portal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraculos (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Many thanks for coming back to me. I don't know how to send a message through wikipedia. If you could email me at peter * mycorp * co * uk please and delete this post.
Regards, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraculos (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
undoing edits
Hi, I just noticed you're string of undoing edits at Derrick Evans. In future instead of undoing each one separately, you'll find it much easier and quicker to just edit the revision before the changes you want to undo and then save that. See Help:Reverting#Manual reverting for instructions if you're not sure how. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Royal Northern College of Music
Thanks for your message. AIUI, the RNCM does indeed have the power to award its own degrees, see this list of "All those institutions or bodies, including universities, which have their own degree awarding powers." Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
EastEnders characters
Hi, I thought you might like to know, since you were the one who originally brought it up on my talk page, that at WP:EASTENDERS we finally decided to change our lists of minor characters to lists of all characters, thus eliminating the problem of knowing who is minor and who is major! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bleaney. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 2005 | ← | Archive 2007 | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 |
- ^ "Prison expansion angers residents". bbc.co.uk. 19 March 2007. Retrieved 2009-01-11.
{{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - ^ http://www.stpaulschurchbedford.org.uk/page10.html 'Brief History of St Paul's'