User talk:SP-KP

Archived messages can be found at:

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Hi; I have responded on the article's talk page to the valid point you raised about the pronunciation sound file, which I added to the article. Let me know your thoughts. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley guide

The easy bit first - I haven't got any of HBW!. I'll make detailed comments on the article tomorrow, but one quicky - I can't see the logic of the review section unless it either links to the actual reviews or summarises what they said (which is probably a bit spammy) Jimfbleak (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

second quicky before I sign off for the evening - the books in references need ISBNs, but the ISBN in the main text would be better in footnotes/ref. The redlinks to authors and book/journal titles are making a rod for your own back -they are not expected, so best take them out. the opening para has three parenthetical bits, bit clunky for the hook. Incorporate or lose, and see WP:LEAD Jimfbleak (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided making any edits to this myself, because if it goes to GA before I go to Thailand in mid-Feb, I'd quite like to review it.

This gives a bit of relevant background for Pam that I think would be worth adding, and also summarises the review in Birding - I think it is a good idea to mention reviews, as long as you can give a link so that people can read either the summary (like the Birding one, or the full text of a professional review like this. The present review section effectively just says it's been reviewed - so what?
The opening passage is still weak, too parenthetical, doesn't mention the endemic section - I'd split it into three paras, without parentheses and with a mention of the extra endemics
As above, redlinks to authors and book/journal titles should go. Journal titles eg Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR look better written in full, and an isbn and publisher are pretty well obligatory for the reffed books
I think it would be better to put the page numbers (which are in parentheses, not brackets) at the end of each species split - It reads poorly, starting each item with parentheses and a lower case letter.
the lists are, well, a bit listy - I would be inclined to move some of the material from footnotes to the text. Ref 2 definitely, since it explains the significance of Clements. Ref 11 and 17 have some interesting stuff that would give more meat to the list, some of the other ( those which are more than "a treatment previously used by...") are also possibilities.
as in your to-do list, you shouldn't need to link both English and binomial names for a species (esp if both redlinked)

I think this is a promising article, well thought out and nicely illustrated, but it needs a bit of work on content and presentation to get through GA at present. It might be worth getting Rufous-crowned Sparrow to have look at a later stage - he's a good and helpful reviewer who has helped get several of my articles up to GA/FA , hope this is helpful, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, [another review] Jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of South Asia

Hi SP-KP: I've added the HBW10 reference. Let me know if anything else should be added! MeegsC | Talk 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brecks

Hello, I just want to inform you, because I found a link to The Brecks at User:SP-KP/Placestodo: I have created this page as redirect to Breckland. I hope I did everything correct. As non-native speaker I'm somewhat confused that "the" is part of the article's name as in "The Fens". Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Christianity

No problem in the assistance. I think one way to improve the discussion going on is to simply have more join the discussion... I was reading the back-and-forth between you and Str and felt that for normal human reasons he was becoming frustrated despite that fact that your questions were valid, and your entire thesis of "this is not obvious to non-Christians" is quite valid. That being said, it is a fine balancing act to 1. Make it clear that most of the article is based on beliefs and interpretation and not fact in the strict sense, with 2. Not discrediting Christianity or patronizing people by over-simplifying ideas. I'll be more active in the discussion and points you are bringing up and will be as neutral as possible as to find change on agreeable ground for everyone. Gwynand (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lundy & Quantocks

Thanks for your improvements to Lundy. If you had a few minutes could you take a look at the Ecology sections of Quantock Hills as I'm hoping to work this up to GA. I got most of it from the SSSI sheets but I'm sure it could be worded in a better way & you may have other sources?— Rod ^talk 11:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've now put Quantock Hills up for GA as (I think) I've done everything else to it.— Rod ^talk 08:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Speedy deletion of Template:Chew Valley/Proposed revision

A tag has been placed on Template:Chew Valley/Proposed revision requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

Congratulations! Two lists you have been involved with were selected WP:LOTDs for May. You may want to add the {{ListoftheDayheader}} or {{ListoftheDaylayout}} templates somewhere in your userspace. Other template options are at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/templates. Your list will appear as WP:LOTD twice. If you have any date preferences in May let me know by April 25th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Christianity

Yup. After a double edit conflict, my comment accidentally removed someone else's - I reverted to restore that comment. I then just left off my thoughts, as they had already been adequately expressed by others. Thanks for the note though. Pastordavid (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Holm

Could you take a look at the Flora & Fauna scetion (& anything else that interests you) on Flat Holm as a few of us are trying to work this article up to GA. Thanks — Rod ^talk 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again— Rod ^talk 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BNVC communities

Hi! Could you please link the botanical names in the articles, not only the common names? Colchicum (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, basically because common names are less standard and often different in the US and UK, let alone capitalization, dashes, spaces etc. However, when the article about a plant has not yet been created and its botanical name is linked, then looking at what links there it is very easy to see whether it is needed. Colchicum (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NVC community CG1 (Festuca ovina - Carlina vulgaris grassland)

Could you clarify for me why this is now an error more than a year after creation? I'm reluctant to speedy an article of that age. Splash - tk 14:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is possible. I'm not quite clear on which article's history and which article's content should be at which title, and what should redirect to where. Could you write me a dummy's summary of what you need? Thanks, Splash - tk 14:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I've done is put the history and content of NVC community CG1 (Festuca ovina - Carlina vulgaris grassland) at British NVC community CG1 (Festuca ovina - Carlina vulgaris grassland) and left the history of the latter article deleted in favour of the former. I have no idea which redirect you are referencing, but I suppose it doesn't matter. Is that what you were after? Splash - tk 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Brenscombe Heath

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Brenscombe Heath, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Brenscombe Heath is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Brenscombe Heath, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

List of Odonata species recorded in Britain was selected as one of the top WP:LOTDs for June and will be the LOTD twice during the month. Let me know before May 23rd if you have nay date preferences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex

Do you think you could sum up everything you would like me to do for you to be satisfied here? The FLC is a bit cluttered, and I'll see what I can do. Qst (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but I don't believe that all SSSIs are notable (although indeed, some larger ones are.) Due to lack of information about the locations where they are, it makes it very difficult to write up even a stub. I'll see what I can do about creating some articles about actuall SSSIs. Qst (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that, its the fact that because the town/village articles don't exist where they belong, and no reliable information is avaialble about it on the internet, it means there has to be redlinks or unlinked SSSIs on the list. Qst (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Under normal circumstances on SSSI lists, the name of the SSSI would be wikilinked to the town/village where it is. But, in this case, a lot of the articles about the towns where the SSSIs are don't exist. As a result, there is no other option but to have them as redlinks in the list, as there is not enough information available to create an article about the town where the SSSI is, and creating an article about an SSSI itself would not be notable. Therefore, most of the links in the table are red. Qst (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally believe they're non-notable. I'm willing to create most of them today. :) Qst (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that okay with you, then? Qst (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised, on the PDF files associated with each SSSI, it states the nearest district/borough. I will link to the nearest district/borough, or the specific town/village where the SSSI is, so in a few minutes, there will be no red links on the article. :) Qst (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've linked all of the SSSIs in the table to the associated borough/district by using the PDF files. I hope you're now satisfied and are willing to offer your support. Thanks, Qst (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of Sunderland06 (talk · contribs) after he offered to help on IRC, there are now a lot more articles in the list, and I believe all non-SSSI articles that are linked in the list have a mention of the SSSI. Are you now willing to offer your support? Qst (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I couldn't have done it without Sunderland06. Also, can I ask where you obtained information to build up this Scotland SSSI list, as maybe some Scottish SSSIs have FL potential too. Qst (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Hi again. I intruded on the conversation you started on Dcoetzee's talk page (sorry!) and added a reply which I paraphrase here...

I deliberately didn't attempt the local pronunciation because I thought I couldn't really achieve the accuracy and authenticity required (although I consider myself able to make passable or good attempts at most British accents). Unfortunately, since the conversation we had at the time I uploaded the file, nobody has uploaded a local version. Perhaps if I record two or three versions and upload them, you may be able to help by identifying the best one or providing guidance for me to get it sounding as accurate as possible? I don't mind making several attempts at getting it right; I would rather have both pronunciations featured on the article than just the RP one we have at the moment. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've made seven attempts. Forgive me if these make you cringe!! I just can't seem to get the "Tyne" to my satisfaction. I'm trying to remember how my university housemate (from Forest Hall) said it; unfortunately his accent also had a heavy German component! I just spoke them off the cuff, one after the other. All feedback gratefully received! Click here for the file. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I thought the third was probably one of the better ones as well, so I'll go with that. I'll give some thought about how to incorporate both files, but if it's unworkable I'll remove the RP version and insert the new version. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded just now. I've added a note on the article's talk page as well. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity/to do (deleted)

Thanks for your note. I can indeed tell you what was there, although I'm moderately unwilling to recreate it unless there is a specific need; it was essentially a rather crude attack page on the topic of Christianity. I can assure you that there was no "to do" list in any respect that comprised any part of it -- it contained not a scrap of useful content, and nothing outside of a badly-spelled and badly-constructed diatribe about the perceived iniquities of Christianity, with no references or sources (or, indeed, capital letters). If you have a need for the specifics of the content, I can of course retrieve them, but I'd want to have a good reason for that. I hope this is the information you were looking for -- if there's something further you wish with respect to this topic, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that you may have been interested in the contents of the associated talk page, which actually did have some content -- the most recent two changes before deletion bore your name, and comprised the following: "*add more references to assist with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, as per request from User:Taxman on the talk page at Talk:Christianity#Request for references.

Italicise Bible and Old & New Testaments as per MoS." I hope this is useful to you. I can track back the various iterations of the talk page if you need that. I want to assure you, I looked at the edit history of the page (not the talk page) and there was never any useful content; I would have restored it had that been the case. Again, if you need something further, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- As per your request, I've restored Talk:Christianity/to do. You will note that the most recent edit, which I have also restored, is the un-useful and vulgar material I deleted on the main page. Please take what you require, editing out the un-useful material as you wish, and then leave me a note and I'll go and delete it again, unless there's something you'd rather do. As always, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks for your note. I'm concerned that since this talk page is "orphaned", in that it doesn't have an accompanying article or project page to go with it, it will be identified as such by a bot and tagged for deletion. If there's something I can do to help you meet that concern, let me know; other than that, it was my pleasure to help and I wish you well with the material in the future. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion

Speedy deletion of The Lilian Ladele tribunal

A tag has been placed on The Lilian Ladele tribunal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

fails WP:NOT#NEWS There is no specifically entity entitled "The Lillian Ladele tribunal" - it was just an employment tribunal like any other. This is regurgitated news reports, all expressing Ladele's side of the case and therefore also in breach of WP:NPOV Also shoddily researched: the woman's name is Lillian not "Lilian"!

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 86.144.76.209 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to repeat what you were already told in the automatic message above: "Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself". It also says this clearly on the template on the article in bold! You action has been rv'd. You may use a Hangon to give your reasons as to why the request for deletion is incorrect, but you will need to be more specific than the comment made in the edit summary. 86.144.76.209 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Not actually a new editor, my IP is not fixed. The correct procedure is to allow an admin to assess the article. From my POV, it's an unbalanced news article with a non-existent title, misspelled subject name and I'm happy for an admin to agree or not: if you want to correct the article, feel free. Regards 86.144.76.209 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to prefer it if the wider community or admins make these decisions: they may well go for AFD, but am happy to leave that up to them. Balancing the article might just help if/when it goes to AFD. Ditto the spelling. Apologies if these messages appear a bit odd - English not even my second language! :-) 86.144.76.209 (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you simple change the redirect (and spelling) to the article for The Christian Institute? It already covers the case in a more accurate manner. 86.144.76.209 (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dali Temple image.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dali Temple image.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Lilian Ladele tribunal

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Lilian Ladele tribunal, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lilian Ladele tribunal. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?