User talk:Smalljim

How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)

Please continue any conversation where it was started.

Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.

I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

If you want to initiate a conversation, please create a new heading here.

Continue existing conversations under existing headings.

Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
Sign your comments automatically using ~~~~.

Talk page archives: Archive 1 | Archive 2

You Rock

Thanks for your tireless efforts to fight vandalism, on Beast and elsewhere. Bry9000 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for those kind words. I see you do a good deal of wikignoming - you rock too :-) —SMALL JIM 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Rollback

I have fulfilled your request for rollback permissions. Please feel free to ask if I can help. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisim from 165.29.119.62

Smalljim, you may want to check the logs again, they've received several final warnings, including an informal warning from me.

You may want to go ahead and turn them in for blocking.

Thanks.

Kendra\^TALK! 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, Kendra. I've tidied up Talk:Love and issued another final warning to 165.29.119.62, this time for using talk pages for discussion. Maybe I'm just an ole' softie, but I'll be watching 'em now. —SMALL JIM 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeaaah well, they're up to it again ;) This time, nonsensical comments on the Talk:Fallacy page. Whoever it is, is in on a Saturday and wanting to ruin things for everyone else. Oh, and Chrysler Building.

Kendra\^TALK! 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've reverted some vandalism on Talk:Fallacy from several days ago, (and on Fallacy, from someone else). I can't see any recent on Chrysler Building. As you've seen from the AIV report you logged earlier, admins won't block a user unless they are actively vandalising.[1] - see the guide.

But basically, don't worry about it - this is just one of the many vandals here, easily matched by the many users who regularly look out for vandalism (see for example Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit). The small amount of vandalism that goes undetected for some time is seen as an acceptable consequence of allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia (one of its Foundation Issues). If anyone sees vandalism, they're encouraged to revert it.

The warnings on a user page serve not only to warn the vandal, but are also useful for later vandal fighters to see if it's a new vandal or an "old hand". So I don't have any special affinity for 165.29.119.62, just because I've issued a couple of warnings. It's a collaborative effort. Hope this explains - let me know if I can help further. —SMALL JIM 13:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind and surprising offer. I'd be happy to help WP as an admin, but could I ask you to check my "credentials" again, please. After looking at a few recent RfAs, I get the impression that I would be a rather borderline candidate: maybe it would be easier if I had a few more months' experience? —SMALL JIM 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would have about a 75% chance of passing. You have good vandal-fighting experience, are experienced at guideline and policy discussions, and as far as I know you haven't any civility issues. The only problem would be your slight lack of article writing experience. If your RfA failed this time around you can still re-apply in a few months. The RfA would good experience for you, and will give you feedback on how your editing could be improved. Epbr123 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've accurately homed in on my main weakness there. I admit to being a very slow writer when not under pressure, mainly due to my bad habit of continually tinkering with what I've written and usually making it worse than my first draft. But that's one of the reasons I'm here - to work on correcting that shortcoming. OK then - thanks for the encouragement: let's give it a whirl... I'm off to bed now. If you catch this and set anything up, I'll tackle it in the (UK) morning. —SMALL JIM 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Epbr123 to accept or decline the nomination. A page will be or has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smalljim . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Let me know once you've answered the questions on your RfA page and I'll get the nomination started. Try to make your answers as thorough as possible, and admit to any conflicts you've had. You can see how others have answered them at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Also, avoid canvassing other users' talk-pages for support, as it will be frowned upon. Good luck. Epbr123 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

This may be worth a look (if you haven't already found it!). Complicated subject area but quite important I guess. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Herby, I had seen that page, but hadn't noticed that you were listed there. Anyway, you've made me read the Lar criteria again, and its talk page, and User:NoSeptember/recall (revised yesterday), and WP:AAA (which I'd missed)… Honestly I couldn't sign up to Lar, not on Wikipedia - it comes across as more complex than any of our policies, even though most of it is procedural. I know it's well-intentioned, but if an editor who was upset with something I'd done landed on that page they would get completely the wrong impression about me. And I think the simpler formulations are potentially too open to abuse. I'd much rather subscribe to a process once it was ironed out and becoming popular, ideally after having had my say about it too. In the meantime I'd put something much softer on my user page; maybe it wouldn't actually mean anything, but it would to me - and that's what would matter. —SMALL JIM 13:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree - I don't like it but (to me) wikipedia is a bit like that. Frankly if a few folk I respected ask me I would let go without my thought. One of those "when I have time I will get something better done"! I'm planning to get some more pics when it dries up at all :) Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to have to work on that accountability statement now :-) Thanks for your help there. It has been a fine weekend - hope you've been out and gathered some more fine content for Commons! —SMALL JIM 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I'm looking forward to working with you! Malinaccier (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Well! Firstly my thanks are due to WJBScribe for dealing with the RfA result so quickly, and thank you Malinaccier for those kind wishes. In line with the last para of the guidance here, I'm not going to post messages to the talk pages of everyone who contributed, so I wish to express my thanks here to all those who !voted and asked questions in my successful RfA. —SMALL JIM 21:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for help on the revert to the Veggie Tales - Conyers.jpg image earlier today. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - not my area of expertise, I hasten to add :) —SMALL JIM 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Something is better than nothing. Chris (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Courts

Thanks for your quick response and the photograph of Plymouth Crown and County Courts, which I've added to List of courts in England and Wales#Crown Courts and List of county courts in England and Wales. Have a cookie to keep you going as you have fun with the mop! Bencherlite ^Talk 09:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teign Bridge

Hello. Yes, I see that I have got the bridges wrong. Please feel free to move it to the Teign site if you have time or I will get around to it asap. The Lindridge reference is personal knowledge as I saw it in the Western Morning News - I think - when it had its conflagration. Thanks for the help.Rosser (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dug this book out - Carrington, N. T. and others. The Teignmouth, Dawlish, and Torquay Guide: with an account of the surrounding neighbourhood, etc. Pub. E. Croydon, Teignmouth. It confirms that it was Teigngrace Bridge. It says that Shaldon Bridge was the longest in the UK when built. Cheers. Rosser (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Dover

Thanks Smalljim! I did have my suspicions, but couldn't back it up - it certainly LOOKED wiki-ish. I am even so rewriting much of it - it skates over so much and gives prominence to what is a small part of history in comparison, and being now a separate article deserves better (even if it didn't before). I am also looking for good references. Thanks for your help Peter Shearan (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work figuring that out. In hindsight, I guess I should have dug a little deeper. --L. Pistachio (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth

Thank you for your hard work on the Plymouth article, and its spin offs. I'm a bit downcast at the minute, and some of the attendant edits by other users that will be amongst your work will likely get on my tits, so I'll be waiting with interest to see what the finished product of this will be. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath for a finished product – I'm just nudging it along a little in what I hope is the right direction. Other people hacking away at it like that doesn't really bother me, as long as it doesn't cross the line into vandalism. Some of the stuff that's gone was rather poor, and it sometimes need an impetus like that to do something about it. Now, what are we going to do with that little "Military and Naval" section stuck at the end – any ideas? —SMALL JIM 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think Military and Naval would be a big section for Plymouth - given that it was described as 'Sparta in the west' by Bob Lenkiewicz. Maybe it should be made into a 'Military and Naval History of Plymouth' in terms of the development of the military aspects of the city both as naval base and fortified strongpoint - but people do moan about military history. At least that would beef it up - otherwise it would have to be merged into something civic. Anyway, I said I *wasn't* going to be doing anything - d'oh! :) Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Steve. I'm no expert on the military, but using Crispin Gill's book as a source, this afternoon I added a bit of recent military history to the article (now at Plymouth#1945_to_the_present, in case you're still not looking at the page ;-) ), and it appears that I've already unknowingly covered most of the content in that short section. So I'll finish the job off and delete it. You're right though that a lot more could be said on the subject, but that's someone else's job. —SMALL JIM 22:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad·ver·sary

Hey there -- I'm looking for the PROD discussion for the Ad·ver·sary article you deleted? I can't find it. Twiin (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]