Jump to content

User talk:Rjm at sleepers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdoDodo (talk | contribs) at 08:27, 20 November 2011 (Talkback (User talk:EdoDodo#Importance of various map articles) (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Rjm at sleepers! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Runcorn 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

== About User:STBotI ==

I read your post on User_talk:STBotI, and just wanted to say that all of the copyright image bots require actual copyright or license templates, like these: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags. A description of fair use won't suffice. connor.carey (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I

I think your article on the "High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I" is a useful addition to Wikipedia, thanks for making the contribution. I have fettled it a little, and it might be worth looking at the regicide page to see if anything can be copied over from there. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find a source for the army council quotation - I copied it from the regicides page where it is similarly unsourced. You've also tagged "this sparked further royalist uprisings which were known as the third civil war" with citation needed. Were you suggesting the need for a citation that the execution sparked royalist uprisings or a citation that confirms the name third civil war? Rjm at sleepers 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Civil War can look after its self, no it is the presumption that the execution sparked further royalist uprisings. I think you can build a case for saying that with the execution of Charles the I the crown was then free (no longer imprisoned in England) for the Scots to place it upon the head of Charles II so starting the Third Civil War, but I am not sure one can argue that the execution it sparked further (English) royalist uprisings. Either which way it is drawing a conclusion that ought to be sourced. If one just blandly says that "A year and a half after the execution the Scots proclaimed Charles II king of Scotland, and this ignited the Third Civil War.", then one is on far safer ground as it is a statement of fact not inference. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed the link in this article to a page that includes the Canadian House of Commons. Surely it s better to link to the British version. (English would have been even better, but it doesn't exist.)

Also, you have included a section on a trial during the interegnum. Was this in anyway connected to the court that tried Charles I? Rjm at sleepers 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) Apologies-amended (2) The 1649 'gagging act'(reference section) mentions the existence of a HCJ for the trial of others namely James Earl of Cambridge. Since there had been no further enactments I read the original act to see if it constituted a HCJ with an independent existence outside of Charles I's trial. My first reading concluded that this was indeed possible and that all subsequent HCJs took their authority from the original. A second reading prompted by your comments has convinced me of the opposite. This may explain why they did not want Hamilton's trial publicised!

Anyway I have listed further HCJ Acts found. I hope you agree it is appropriate to mention them in this article. Aatomic1 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ODNB

"Add Thomas Hammond who is said by ODNB to have attended 14 sessions but did not sign)"

What is ODNB? please put it in as a reference. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your question

Well, firstly, AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion held to measure consensus. While the number of editors arguing for a given position certainly is a factor in weighing the consensus, it is not the sole consideration. In the case of Local history glossary, there were several arguments weighing in favor of deletion.

  • The article was a list of dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  • While the article was pretty well-written, we have more appropriate sister projects for that type of content.
  • The article has already been transwikied to Wikibooks, which is better suited to handle it, and has a format much more conducive to writing a great work on it. Since the transwiki had already taken place, no content is lost, simply moved. Some of the definitions also may very well be appropriate for Wiktionary, if it doesn't have a page on the word-Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is!

In sum, the arguments regarding the fact that the topic was inherently unsuitable for this project and better suited to Wikibooks were just not answered, the content has already been moved to a better home, and most of the "keep" arguments center around the "Other articles like this exist" argument. Unfortunately, we often have articles which are not suitable and haven't been noticed, but that doesn't mean any other article like it is suitable. I'd strongly encourage you to help with the Wikibook if you wish to continue work on the subject, but if you do still disagree, you may also request a deletion review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Conquest

Hi - I left an edit field note in error, the correct talk page discussion I meant to refer to is [1]. It discusses the difference between the terms "conquest" and "invasion". Historians use the term "conquest" and not "invasion" when referring to this event because it took a generation to conquer the country and remove any remaining resistance. Although there were later invasions, and even symbolic events such as temporary taking the throne, none of them "conquered" (subdued, pacified and fully controlled) England. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Famine Book

I read your entry on the talk page and just wanted to let you know that entries on "did you know" have to come from recently (less than 5 days) created or substantially expanded articles. Also, if it's a book, it's probably written from it's author's POV. When you write ABOUT the book, thats when you have to be neutral. In other words you can say something like "this is a book that claims the Irish famine was evil" but not "this is the worst book ever written about the famine".Galf 09:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said evil above but that was a bad choice of words, because most people agree that the famine was in someway "bad", I should have said something more controversial... I also forgot to say something else, if you feel that the book (not the famine, at least in this article) are misrepresented you can always edit it, fror example, by adding a book review that is critical of it. Just always remember to attribute any opinions you include. Galf 13:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwell

Please do. I can put some details in about the civil parish history too. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 07:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Chadwell St Mary CP and Tilbury UD occupied the same area from 1912 to 1936. [2] MRSC • Talk 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etchingham

Yes, the James Templer reference was the residency in Etchingham, not a fact I had come acrioss before. ColinBoylett 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Park

Regarding the reference you added to Bletchley Park, could you add some info to say who published it? --Concrete Cowboy 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:Orsett-hall-fire.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Orsett-hall-fire.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Orsett-hall-fire.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Orsett-hall-fire.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Orsett hall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orsett hall.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Denehole.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Denehole.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Earthworks (archaeology)

Thanks for adding some references to this article. I've added it to Category:Archaeology and removed the uncategorised tag. Can you have a look through the sub-categories for Category:Archaeology and see if there's an better and more appropriate sub-category for it? (I know nothing about archaeology!) Cheers. DrFrench 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:169549 73198344.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:169549 73198344.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

moved

Apologies--the stuff below ended up on your user page. It shouldn't have, of course, it should have been here on the talk page. My mistake. DGG 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sir Hugh Dacre Barrett-Lennard, 6th Baronet

I declined to delete it, as speedy deletion requires no assertion of importance, and I consider saying someone is a baronet is sufficient for that, though most people think it i not enough to ultimately keep the article. I changed the tag to propose deletion in 5 days to give time to show it's notable for WP purposes.

What this primarily needs is stronger evidence about his activities. Priests and other clergymen, and baronets as well, are generally considered notable only if they have in fact done something notable. (Not my decision, just information) Further, this will need documentation. Apparently the basic information is from an obituary, and it should be cited -- and be certain you're not copying it. But it really will take at least one and better two news article or magazine or some other reference to him. The London Oratory is a prominent church with an article in WP, so there might well be something.

If you find information, add it and remove the tag. Someone will probably then nominate it for deletion via the AfD process, and you can then defend the article. Without further material, I advise you that it will certainly be deleted if brought to AfD. You are of course perfectly welcome to try. (This isn't my personal opinion about the merits necessarily--just advice about what people will probably do.)

What I very strongly suggest is that you add the information as a section to the article about the Barony. That combination article can realistically be defended, and, in my opinion, it is the best way in general to deal with bios of this sort when there is limited information. You can then turn the individual article into a redirect to that section--if you need assistance with that, ask me. DGG 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed you have -- the pro-baronet and anti-baronet parties have been after each other for months at AfD. I stood for the baronets at first, except that one particularly undiscriminating editor started writing articles about all his relatives basing it only on a genealogy book by one of the family, which not surprisingly lost everyone's sympathy. I advised you on the basis of the present consensus at AfD. (and DRV). Of course it will change. The thing to do about family quarrels is to side-step them, so I think the section approach is the way to go. Works on all sorts of subject-- if consensus changes or you can find info, it can be changed back to an article easily enough. DGG 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthworks

Hello, I am interested into earthworks which are a bit longer... systems to mark the boarder of a territory for protection and taking taxes or as defense lines. In Germany we have a lot of systems which are rather forgotten nowadays. Most of the seem to be made in the middleages. The have one or two dykes and so one, two or three ditches and were grown with thorny hedges. A length of up to 30 miles or longer is not unusual. What would be a proper lemma for it in English? -- Simplicius 22:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Belhus.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Belhus.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..

For this article, I don't believe an infobox is necessary. It's very generic, and anyone who reads the article will easily find that information. That is just my opinion of course. When was he the surviving son? And how is that relevant, or what did the other siblings die of? To use abbreviations like JP and MP, you need to put Member of Parliament (MP) the first time it's used. Then you can use MP. The only thing in the article that really needs fixing is the referencing. All sentences/paragraphs should be referenced with inline citations. The first reference could be converted to a normal one using <ref> tags and the template {{Cite web}}. References also should come after punctuation. I hope this helped a bit, people from this time period are definitely confusing to write about. And one more thing, if you searched a genealogy site like RootsWeb for him you might be able to find a more exact birth date, maybe. Good luck, Psychless 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I at Tilbury

Thanks for tidying up my revisions to the introduction to Tilbury, that was sloppy wording on my part. I lived in Tilbury for a few years, including at the time of the events in 1988 to mark the 400th anniversary of the speech, so I should have done better! Regards, --Malcolmxl5 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Hugh Barrett-Lennard, 6th Baronet

Having just spotted his obituary in the Telegraph,[3] I have just noticed your excellent article on Sir Hugh. I have taken the liberty of expanding it a little.

The original was very good - perhaps you may consider nominating such articles for WP:DYK in future, so they can appear on the Main Page and receive a wider audience? -- !! ?? 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic landscape characterisation

When English Heritage is the sponsor of the program, I would submit that additional sources are necessary to ensure the most reliable coverage and to establish the notability of the program. That is why I have included the template in this article. Erechtheus 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I removed the template. Please know you had no obligation to add references, but I do thank you for your efforts here and on Wikipedia in general. Erechtheus 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tithe maps

Hello, thanks for the contact. I hadn't realised the article was so young until after I'd made the edit (sorry!). It looks good now! Excellent work! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References in Enclosure

Hi RJM. Good edits in Enclosure. I noticed you've been wikifying the refs, and have been having trouble with the ibid ones. I don't know if it's possible to do ibids entirely using the Wiki ref system, but there are two ways I know of to do it reasonably neatly. One is simply to repeat the whole ref each time, with just the page numbers different. This leads to a repetitive reflist, but each ref can at least be linked from within the article. Another way, which I've just noticed being done in Boar#Habits, is to use a repeat ref, but keeping the page numbers in the text as superscript. This seems much neater, although the page numbers don't link.

Regards, --Richard New Forest (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:England people message

This edit by Cyde removed "by settlement" from the category scheme, referring to a CFD which I could not find. This had the effect of making Category:People from Basildon [i.e the town] a subcategory of Category:People from Basildon [referring to the district] (previously had been Category:People from Basildon by settlement). I thought this change was bad, so (rather than revert, which would be naughty) I changed it to Category:People from xxx (district). This reintroduced disambiguation between places from districts. I made a note of it in the documentation. MRSC • Talk 15:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Wool-market.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No content in Category:People from Thurrock

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:People from Thurrock, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:People from Thurrock has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:People from Thurrock, 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) 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exmouth

I'm mystified. Are you sure your message was for me? --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Training ship. I'm with you now! --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwell (Leicestershire)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chadwell (Leicestershire), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Chadwell. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

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) 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contact!

Dear RJM, are you an ex Beal boy? If so please message me on my Talk page. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Hi Rjm at sleepers!
We thank you for uploading Image:Chadwell Skyline.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thurrock Council election 2008

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Thurrock Council election 2008, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Triwbe (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British toponymy

Good job on that passage about transferred names for lost features. —Tamfang (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of Image:026788 4d078896.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:026788 4d078896.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Duplicate of Image:Baker Street Mill.jpg which is on Commons. Picture not used on English language wikipedia.

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 [[Talk:Image:026788 4d078896.jpg|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.

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've nominated the image for deletion as I uploaded it to Commons, which makes it available across all Wikipedias. I changed the picture on the Baker Street article to the Commons one. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tilbury

Hi Rjm. Thank you for your comment on the above. I suppose I really meant to make the comment about the area on which the town was eventually to stand, rather than a town that didn't exist. I understand from one of the references that the ferry actually docked at the Fort at some point in its history. After all it is still perfectly correct to talk about the Romans being there. Deletion seems a bit drastic! Peter Shearan (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mucking excavation

Updated DYK query On 15 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mucking excavation, 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.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cornelis Janssens van Ceulen

Updated DYK query On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornelis Janssens van Ceulen, 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.

DYKBot (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roundheads

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14. I am being bold. When that decision was taken the article Cavalier was not as that name. Now that there are two articles Cavalier and Roundhead, it makes sense to have the categories under the same names as the Wikipedia articles and not longer more verbose descriptive names. Like Cavalier, Roundhead long lost any pejorative meaning that it started out with (as evidenced by the meaning given to it the OED). --PBS (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. So that we do not repeat ourselves, I suggest that we continue the conversation as Category talk:Roundheads --PBS (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Whalley

It was probably a mistake that I didn't notice, since I'm sure I didn't intend to remove him from that category. Kuralyov (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dell

My area of interest is DYK, and I don't normally find the time to look at articles in sufficient depth to determine whether or not they need to be totally rewritten. I saw a number of sentences in the article that were almost verbatim with source, and that was enough to disqualify it for DYK. If you want an opinion on the article as a whole, I guess you could ask someone to review it at WP:CV. Gatoclass (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Susanna Temple, Lady Lister

An interesting dilemma. I got the dates from the Christie's catalogue but they may well have been interpolating from the inscription, and of course inscriptions are often later additions or badly "repaired". I think a good solution is simply to add a ? in front of the birthdate. We could start a Wikipedia article on Susanna Temple and cite your source that states her birthdate is unknown, and footnote the bit about her parents' wedding date. That's edging into OR, but if we cite our sources it's probably defensible, although what we really need is a written source that questions the inscription. The bigger challenge on that is whether Susanna Temple meets the notability guidelines; as a lady in waiting to Anne of Denmark and the sitter in portraits by Gheeraerts and Cornelius Johnson, she probably does. I am always tempted to use a good portrait as an excuse for a biography stub.

In any case, I am going to slap a ? on that birthdate since a quick google search doesn't find a date anywhere except the Christie's catalogue. Thanks for the puzzle. - PKM (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Penistone memorial.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sir Thomas Peniston

Updated DYK query On March 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Thomas Peniston, 1st Baronet, 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) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. - PKM (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a big question that should have been asked much earlier: is it "Peniston" or "Penistone"? The article seems to include that extra "e" pretty consistently. - Dravecky (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon Ōdai Ichiran

I noticed your name amongst those contributing at Talk:Primary source.

Will you take a look at what I've pulled together at Primary source -- see here?

What do you think? I wonder if you'd be willing to suggest how this analysis might be improved?

Perhaps you may want to argue that using Nihon Ōdai Ichiran is not helpful as a strategy for illustrating the differences among primary, secondary and tertiary sources? --Tenmei (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjm at sleepers -- Thanks for the feedback. Moving this section to the bottom of the page was easily accomplished; but perhaps there are other improvements to be made?
What I'm looking for editing help -- tightening the sentences, focusing the ideas so that the illustrative example is instructive and useful. I think this particular text is useful because it's cross-cultural, non-western, non-controversial, minor, etc. In this context, I don't want my abilities as a writer to diminish the potential value of this example. Perhaps I might encourage you to try editing these few paragraphs so the relational concepts are more clearly presented? Perhaps too much detail is muddying the effectiveness of this example? I need a fresh perspective in order to make it better. --Tenmei (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kenneth St Joseph

Updated DYK query On May 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kenneth St Joseph, 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) 08:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grays Thurrock

Just interested where you found this 'formal' name from? I must admit I've never come across it. --Jimbo[online] 07:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough. Chadwell St Mary is a bit more obvious as signs/notices/publications etc etc and often just called Chadwell out of ease. Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 11:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up in Little Thurrock, and the use of Grays Thurrock as the parish name seemed to apply to the town as well in the 1950s. The Railway station was Grays Thurrock till 1901.--Brunnian (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

charles

I did not make a mistake, but I'm not going to kick up a fuss. I just thought the meaning was obvious, and that wherever possible we should avoid polluting direct quotes. BillMasen (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Temple

I am systematically going through a list of articles, where there is a copyleft problem with articles that contain information directly copied from the British Civil War website. See (User:Philip Baird Shearer/BCWs copyright issues).

In most cases this is not too much of a trauma because the page had not developed much from the initial copied text. However one page where the text differs considerably is James Temple. The problem is that because of the nature of copyleft licenses the edits since its initial creation are derived works so the page is incompatible with the Wikipedia licenses. I note that most of the additional work to the page was done by you. So what I suggest is that we work on a new page.

I intend to delete the current page and replace it with a modified version of the text on Wikisource:User:Philip Baird Shearer/Sand Box. I will also extract some information from Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: Temple, James (1606–c.1674), regicide by J. T. Peacey an obvious one is DOB!

Rather than just deleting the page James Temple. Would you like me to move the current article under your user space, so that you can salvage anything that you think is pertinent?

--PBS (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"I have copied the article to my user space. I believe that it would be relatively easy to remove from it everything that was in the article on 4th February 2007 (and hence anything copied from the British Civil Wars site). I could then fill in the resulting ommissions from other sources. Would that be acceptable?"
I am no expert on this, but I do not think so because of the nature of the the licences used. See this link which is the link from the home page of www.british-civil-wars.co.uk Note Share-alike "Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one."
so I think we have to delete it and start again. But I'll stay my hand for the moment on James Temple as I have left a message on User talk:Digweed#Creative Commons License to see if we can have this article re-licenced as compatible with Wikipedia's licence. --PBS (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the GA reviewer, this copyright issue is not a subject I can contribute effectively on. However as long as the article still exisits I will leave the review open until such time as the review can be taken up again.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The private email I had from David Plant last December indicated that he would be happy to provide the necessary licensing permissions. Why not go to his web site and webtxt/email him to look at his Wikipedia talk page (User talk:Digweed)?

To reply to your posting to my talk page. The problem is the words BCW-->licence "Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one." The incremental changes are building on that work. (which is the reason where the original creation was a copy I have deleted the article and created a new one). But lets take the conversation to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#James Temple for other opinions. --PBS (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Philip Mawer

Hello! Your submission of Philip Mawer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Philip Mawer

Updated DYK query On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philip Mawer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject:Did you know 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User Rjm at sleepers/galileo

Hi

I moved User Rjm at sleepers/galileo to User:Rjm_at_sleepers/galileo - you put it in article space by mistake. andy (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New section

Hello Rjm at sleepers. Sorry for don't writte you. My english is very poor so I don't want to writte much. If you have any problem pliss tell me. Thank, -- by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Taylor (disambiguation)

Hello, just to let you know that this disambiguation page has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Woodside Primary School, Grays

An article that you have been involved in editing, Woodside Primary School, Grays, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodside Primary School, Grays. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Horndon mint

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mardyke (river)

Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Partial frustration of Knickebein

I have reverted your edit about the Battle of the Atlantic referring to the Battle of Britain. My authority is Dr R V Jones' book: Jones, R. V. (1978), Most Secret War, London: Book Club Associates, p. 110, ISBN 978-0241897461 where he said that "Of the many laudatory verdicts that have been passed in the books, I think that the one that I value most—apart from Winston's own—was that by Telford Taylor, Professor of Law in Columbia University, New York and incidentally the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, in his book The Breaking Wave: 'The early detection and partial frustration of Knickebein—a feat then known only to a few—was an early and major British victory in the Battle of Britain.' If that was right, I was in the best of company, few though it may have been. --TedColes (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your most recent comments. --TedColes (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for White v Driver

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Talkback

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

About "Minster hypothesis" article title with Quotation marks

Hi, Rjm at sleepers! Should "Minster hypothesis" possibly be Minster hypothesis with an {{Italics title}} tag? MOS:TITLE suggests that "quotation marks" should only be used for excerpts from literary works, or shorter literary works. Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the quotation marks was an accident, although a number of the sources do put the phrase in inverted commas. I didn't change it because I'm not familiar with the best way to do it. If you (or anyone else for that matter) want to change it, that's not a problem. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I came to suggest the same thing, and saw this comment, so have moved the page to Minster hypothesis as per Shirt's comments. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well edited

Thanks. Wifione Message 08:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

User:Serendipity23411 Hi I'm adding a paper on the history of deaf education and I was wondering if you could give me some feedback. I am a new user and I want to make sure I'm following the guidelines correctly. —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Rjm at sleepers. You have new messages at EdoDodo's talk page.
Message added 08:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 - EdoDodo talk 08:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjm_at_sleepers&oldid=461562648"