User talk:Peterkingiron/Archive 3

Walrasiad

Hi, Peterkingiron. We haven't been introduced yet. You and I took part on move on João VI of Portugal a few days ago. One user, called Walrasiad, has made harsh accusations towards us on the ANI. Please take a look at it. --Lecen (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad said that you (as well as others) voted in favor of the move because I asked you to. I thought you could clear that out and tell them that I did not do that. --Lecen (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad, GoodDay and SergeWoodzing are giving the impression that there is a big deal about the name move since they keep discussin among themselves. The latter two editors are well known to be active on move discussions anytime it involves the use of foreign names. I don't have anything against them taking part on such discussions, but to accuse other editors of misbehavior simply because they have a different opinion other than theirs is unfair. --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Comments added to both pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Saw your last reply.[1] Take a look at the message writen by SergeWoodzing just above yours: "I think it was - supporters seem to have been acting together" I find unhealth and unnecessary this kind of behavior. However, it would be great if you could comment here. You need to make clear that you were not asked to vote. Sorry for bothering you with this. --Lecen (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was a little taken aback by your comment ([2]) on the categories move page about "User: Walrasiad seems to be overly possessive of his own view of what articles relating to Portugal should be called", and could not imagine for the life of me why the sudden personal jab. Then looking here, I realize you were one of the people involved in that debacle over John VI a month or so ago, and remembered that I had never quite returned to apologize personally to you for implicating you by association in the unfortunate accusations I made against the_Ed17, which I subsequently retracted. So I would like to apologize now, if you will accept them?

I sincerely hope that whatever bad feelings that episode generated will not mar our continued iteraction. I notice you are an economic historian. I am an economist too, and although economic history is not my sworn speciality, it is an area I am particularly interested in, particularly the Indies trade (ergo the maritime history, ergo Portugal). Since I am likely to come across you again in economic history-related articles, I would like to make sure that the bad feelings I doubtlessly generated with that debacle do not permanently sour our interaction in the future. If you can find a way to put that past aside, and start this relationship anew, on a fresh footing, I would be most grateful, and hopefully we might find it even quite productive.

As for your suggestion that I am possessive, meh, not really. I usually keep to a quiet corner of wiki, working primarily on commerce, ships and chronicles. I only get roused out of my cavern when some wide-ranging change threatens to massively disrupt all that work at once. Walrasiad (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Alfred Faulkner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C.B. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)  DonePeterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN mention

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited History of the British canal system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land drainage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan (disambiguation)

Since you were involved in Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation), you may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taiwan_island_group, since it is one of the items listed at the disambiguation page. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Red Friday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Daily Herald

Shanghai Defence Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjab Regiment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)  Done

Taiwanese archipelago

Please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan island group. The article has been expanded with numerous sources. A move request is also on the way at Talk:Taiwan island group. Thanks. 203.145.92.173 (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

World oil market chronology from 2003

This was a great solution. Thanks.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Category interwikis

Hi Peter, no particular reason for calling you on this except for your experience here. Can you tell why the interwiki links come up as redlinks instead of interwikis at Category:Service companies of the United States? – Fayenatic (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I fixed it. There must be something wrong in the parameter-handling code in Template:category diffuse. I'll leave a note on the template talk page. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Stoics

Would you please see my comment here? Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Fooians

discussion moved at your request from User talk:BrownHairedGirl

After initial misgivings, I have been supporting your nominations to rename Old Fooians. However, I think there will have to be a point at which we will draw a line on this. I will oppose renames on Old Etonians, Old Harrovians, Old Salopians. and those for other major public schools. My object in writing this message is to try and agree with you where that line should be. It seems to me that the starting point ought to be the schools of the Public Schools Act 1868, but I suspect that there are a few major public schools that have been founded since. Membership of the Headmasters Conference is too widespread to provide a satisfactory criterion. Any ideas?

I have bookmarked your talk page, but it might be better to have the discussion on mine, which is likely to rather less active than yours or on some project talk page. However, do not involve other regular contributors to the Old Fooian discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter

Thanks for your message, and for your constructive participation in the CFDs (not just cos you support the recent noms, but because you take care to consider them carefully). I had actually been thinking of raising the issue with you, so it was good timing that you got here first.

As you will have noticed, what I have been working on so far is a) ambiguous Old Fooians, and b) obscure Old Fooians (i.e. those where the school name is not the "Foo" in "Fooian"). I think that I have now done nearly all of those, so apart from any remaining oddities that I find in further trawls, I intend to take a break from these for a while. Getting rid of categories like Old Stoics, Old Dolphins and old Mid Whitgiftians has been a huge improvement, and after that it's time to draw back and review the rest.

As to the rest of them, I have developed a few very tentative notions for whenever I get back to them:

• Old Etonians is a slam dunk keep. 2,000+ articles on notable Old Etonians, and the term is very widely used.
• Not so sure on the other old major public schools. I haven't yet seen evidence that their "Old Fooians" terms are anywhere near as widely used, and my experience of researching the "Old Gowers" suggests that caution is needed, so I have an open mind on them. But, note the google news hits e.g. 4,290 for "old Etonian" but only 5 for "old Reptonian" ... and the 17 "old Alleynian" hits are mostly about the rugby club.
• Most of the remaining "Old Fooians" seem to be those more minor schools where the Foo directly relates to the school name, which is difft to the obscure ones I have nominated so far. I have toyed with the idea of dividing that group between those where Foo is a major town (so the "Fooian" may be widely used for the town), and those where the "Foo" is a smaller place or not a place, but again unsure on that

I have not been able to find any other usages of your phrase "major public school", so I have invented my own methodology for classifying the remainder -- please feel free to critique it. I am also unpersuaded that there is a relevant distinction any more between Grammar schools and public Schools, at least when we get beyond the most prestigious public schools; post-1975, the distinction between grammar and public school has become very blurred. My hunch is that some of the Grammar Schools churned out a lot of notable people, particularly in the Northern cities ... and that what matters in terms of these categories is not the history of the school, but the recognisability of its Old Fooian term. It may be that some grammar schools pass that test, and some public schools fail it, but my core idea throughout all these discussions has been simply to apply the WP:COMMONNAME test: what matters here is whether the term is recognisable to our readers and editors, so I don't see any need to make a hard-and-fast distinction. If a hedge school's "Old Fooian" term is widely understood, that's fine by me.

As I say, those are early thoughts on how to view the remainder. If and when I do proceed, my notion so far has been to do some triage:

• Get a list of all the remaining Old Fooian categories.
• Exclude all those listed in the Public Schools Act 1868
• Exclude all of the Eton Group
• Exclude all those which are noted in Monnraker's list as containing more than 100 biographical articles (or use an updated list if anyone makes it)

All those "excluded categories" are those where I think that individual further assessment is needed, because on a few crude measures they have a plausible claim to be of particular significance. I think that it's a bigger group than you were suggesting, but I want to clarify the next phase by focusing on the "minor" schools.

At a rough guess, that will leave about 50 Old Fooian categories on the "remainder list". My instinct is to do a trial group of about five of them, to test the consensus. It may be that editors don't want to go further than removing the obscure and ambiguous, and if here is a clear consensus in that regard, I think that would be the point to stop. OTOH, if there is a consensus to rename that sample, I would proceed with the remainder in batches of about ten.

If those were renamed, that would leave us with my "excluded categories", those which appear likely to be more recognisable. After my look at the Old Gowers, I think that they need individual consideration.

How does that sound? User:BrownHairedGirl User talk:BrownHairedGirl

Thank you for a long and considered reply. I think I would like to add the Rugby Group to your "excluded" list. If we go for "keeping" old fooians only for Public Schools Act 1868, Eton Group, and Rugby Group, I think we have a robust criterion, which will cover most of those at the top of Monnraker's list. I was aware that talking of "major" public school, raises a POV issue, as those on the borderline will want to deny that they are "minor" ones.

Despite its name, I think that Manchester Grammar School is a public day school. This also applies to King Edwards School, Edgbaston, but that suffers from a disamiguation issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad that this makes sense, and happy to add Rugby Group to my "excluded list".

Just thought I should stress that I am only excluding those ones from the group nominations of more minor schools. If there a consensus to de-Fooianise the minor ones, I would then want to look again at the excluded ones; one at a time, doing some research. That three-orders-of-magnitude Google News gap between 4,290 "old Etonian" hits and 5 "old Reptonian" hits suggests to me that "Old Etonian" may in the end be the only exception to a general rule that these are predominantly inhouse terms.

The important thing is that we seem to agree on the principle of a stepped approach, which I hope will be a suitable way to find out where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree. I do not want to be dogmatic, but we clearly need a robust and defensible criterion. The article on Repton School lists over 50 Old Reptonians, which suggests that the Ghits figure is failing to reflect the scope of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that gets us to the point where we do differ! (Tho its great to be able to differ so amicably).

AFAICS, you seem to consider the central issue to be the significance of the school, in terms of its prestige as an institution and/or its number of notable alumni. (Pls correct me if I am wrong).

OTOH, my interest is solely in getting category names which make sense to readers and editors. At one extreme, Old Etonians is a very recognisable term which makes a great category name, but the Old Roffensians and Dolphins and Stoics are useless. To my mind, I consider the various rankings we have devised as a sort of a rough guide to which of the remainder are more likely to turn out to be useful, rather than as a definitive map; they are a triage process rather than diagnosis. It would be convenient for everybody if there was some sort of bright line to draw here, but Wikipedia's changeable-consensus model doesn't usually draw bright lines. (Note, for example, how WP:SMALLCAT has never had a codified numerical threshold). We will have to wait and see whether one emerges in this case, but I suspect that the most likely outcome will be something more fuzzy.

We have clearly moved away from the use-old-Fooian-if-it-exists bright line which held seemed to be in place until late 2010. At the other extreme, one possible outcome is a no-old-Fooians bright line, but I'd prefer something short of that, although I don't yet know how far short of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was working from the significance of the school, but I think that the number of notable alumni is a way of measuring that. If any one suggests banning all old fooians, I will be taking a stand against that. You are probably right in saying that the Stoics have to go, because it is too obscure, but Old Wykehamists ought not to be, even though it derives from the name of the founder, not that of the school. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll champion that extreme bright line you mentioned: They should all go. As a benighted American, the only understanding I have of any of these terms is from the discussions about them on CfD. I can't tell the validity of one "Old Exonian" from another. We Americans may be a rather uneducated sort, but there are a lot of us, and we have no idea what you folks are talking about when you use these terms. (There's a "Rugby Group"? Really?) Salt them all, sez me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• My view (as you might guess) is the mirror image of Mike Selinker's, that all should stay. Almost all "Old Fooian" terms, with the possible exception of some referring to schools long gone, such as "Old Brucastrians", are in practice much more commonly used than any other formulation, although perhaps all such numbers are very low on the "global" scale. Also, there should be room for diversity in the English Wikipedia, respecting local traditions. (By the way, we now have a high number of these former pupil categories which contain only one or two or three biographies, and I doubt whether all are really needed: most, I think, were created with the quite comical object of stacking numbers in favour of the "People educated at..." format!) Having said the above, I can see (as I think Peterkingiron can) that there is a wind of change blowing, and without prejudice to my view that all should stay I could support a policy which protects the most important ones. I certainly concur with keeping "Old Wykehamists". With regard to the Public Schools Act 1868, it was never intended that it should deal with all public schools or with all the important ones, although in practice it did capture almost all of the "greatest" schools of the 1860s, most of which are still in the top rank. I do not see how that incomplete list of great schools five or six generations ago can be used definitively now, except perhaps as a starting point. The numerical approach has the advantage of being much more objective than subjective, though where the threshold comes is a matter for debate - perhaps at 100? or else at 150? I should not go for a number under 150, although of course in my view ten would be a rational choice. Greetings, Moonraker (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  NB I have brought my list at User:Moonraker/OF up to date. The "Old Fooian" format still predominates for English school categories which have more than a handful of biographies in them, and despite all renaming in the last year there are still far more people in "Old Fooian" categories than in the "People educated" ones. Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  In my list I have marked the schools regulated by the 1868 Act. I see the category for one of them, Merchant Taylors, was moved three days ago from Old Merchant Taylors to "People educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood". Moonraker (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for updating the list, Moonraker. It has been v helpful.

  As noted above, I think that the 1868 Act schools are part of a wider group which need individual consideration. Apart from the "Old Merchant Taylors" which you noted above, there is also the "Old Gowers" (UCS is in the Eton Group). There may well be other schools in that list which are ambiguous or particularly obscure, and as I noted above I will look at those whenever I encounter them. Ambiguous or obscure category names do not help our readers or editors, which is why there have been so many CFD discussions about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I haven't marked the Eton group schools yet but can do that. As I have said elsewhere, in my view the "ambiguous" or "obscure" argument is overdone. Categories are not for giving information, merely for categorizing. Moonraker (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Monnraker, see WP:CAT#Overview: "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics."

  That's a navigational function. Your seem to view categories as something akin to a book index or a tagging system or a taxonomy, but that's not what what Wikipedia categories are for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

PS I missed Monnraker's longer, earlier post.

Aside from the paranoid fantasy that the other descriptively-titled categories were created as some sort of a plot, the point that struck me was the numbers.

In a way I rather regret raising the use of numbers, because it Moonraker misunderstand why I was using them. I think that's because we are approaching this issue from entirely different angles. My concern is very simple: category names should be meaningful to the reader, who should not be forced to open up a category page to find out what on earth it is for. I think of the category name as a sort of signpost on a navigational journey, and a signpost is useless if it doesn't tell me what is in the direction it is pointing. As above, I couldn't care less whether the school in question is a short-lived hedge school or a hyper-exclusive ancient joint; what matters to me is simply whether the category name helps the reader to easily understand the purpose of the category. I am saddened that unlike Peterkingiron, some editors such as Moonraker seem to show absolutely no concern for the utility of category names as a signpost. As a result, most of these discussions have happened at cross-purposes, and I suspect Moonraker's refusal to accept the existence of navigability principle is why zie is using WP:BATTLEGROUND language and looking for plots everywhere.

There is a very strong precedent for this approach. Demonyms were removed from the category system years ago, in favour of simple descriptive terms per WP:NDESC. If we followed that highly stable precedent, the solution would be very simple: get rid of all the "Old Fooian" terms, even for Eton, just as we got rid of Londoners and New Yorkers and Parisians. Now that we have resolved the debate between alumni/former pupils/former students by adopting "ppl educated at", there might well be a consensus to do so.

Over the last year, I have repeatedly said that I would not support that, because Old Etonians was v notable and maybe others were too. I still take that view, but it becomes ridiculously tedious to do all the individual assessments if Moonraker and a few others simply stick their head in the sands and oppose CFD nominations which they have not even read, such as here. If such silliness persists, it may be easier to just rename the lot.

What I would prefer to do is to continue to treat the more prestigious schools as worthy of individual consideration. My number-of-notable-alumni test above was intended solely as a way of looking for more schools which should get that individual attention. I already have some strong preliminary evidence that the numbers do not correlate directly to the notability of the "old Fooian" term: see google news hits e.g. 4,290 hits for "old Etonian" but only 5 for "old Reptonian". We have articles on 2,433 Category:Old Etonians, and 143 Category:Old Reptonians, but "old Reptonian" barely makes it onto the radar in common usage. That's 1.76 "Old E" mentions for each "Old Etonian", but only 0.03 "OR" mentions for each "Old Reptonian".

If that sort of pattern is sustained in more thorough checking, it means that a) an intelligent reader who scours the news media is highly unlikely to have encountered the term "old Reptonian", and b) the number of biogs is a pretty useless proxy for the recognisability of the "Old Fooian" term. That's why I will accept number of biogs only as a cue for further research.

I can posit two fairly simple explanations for the apparent lack of a correlation between number of notables and news media usage of the "Old Fooian" term. The first that some schools have achieved a sort of totemic significance, which makes attendance at them a more noteworthy fact in some eyes. Eton is clearly one; the fact that some minsters are Old Etonians is widely commented on, but the secondary education of most other senior politicians doesn't attract so much attention. The second factor is a critical mass threshold: even if they are noting someone's educational background, a journalist won't use the "old Fooian" term unless they think it makes sense to their readers; unless they can be reasonably confident that the word is understood, then the word will have to be explained, and wordcounts are tight. Why say "Jim was an Old Foobargian (i.e. educated at Foobar College)" when it's shorter to say "Jim was educated at Foobar College"? Most of the time, the sub-editor's blue pencil will go straight through the verbose format.

A further thought: if "Old Reptonian" is as unknown as it appears, then it is more of a problem than a similarly obscure names used on fewer articles, because it will create more instances of confused reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you'd told me that this is what an Old Reptonian was, I would have believed you.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Mike's joke aside, I have been looking at the relationship between Old Fooian terms and demonyms. The ambiguities and obscurities are a big mess, so that's the next area I will be trying to clean up. There is going to be a lot of work in that, but afterwards I'll probably go back to the sort of status-based triage we discussed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I fail to get meaningful results from following your link. Googling suggest that a reptonian is also a design of arm chair as well as a denizen of the school. However, I do not think we should get hung up on one case. Perhaps, Repton needs to be below the limit of what we allow, but where do we draw the line? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  From my latest round of analysing the townian fooians and the cityian fooians, I'm seeing a lot of problems. So I'd be very way of setting a line at this stage anywhere below Eton. The line may well end up a lot lower, but until we have cleaned up the ambiguities it's too hard to get a picture of what the remainder looks like.

  As to Repton, I note that it while the school has produced lots of notable alumni, the village of Repton is small. That may be a factor to consider in how to draw a line. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  (Reptonian link fixed.) I'm not sure I was joking. I work in the sci-fi realm a lot, and a Reptonian sounds like an alien lizard-monster. I won't rule out that people from Repton look like that, though. That might illustrate how accessible names like this are to a well-educated American like me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Some data

Peter, I thought that you might be interested in a discussion on my talk page (section New cfds regarding "Old Fooians" which led to me doing some more research on the usage of "Old Etonian". The diff in which I posted it is here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article

Since you have previously shared your view in a CfD about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insight at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012) too. Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.76 (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks

for your valuable input, I would like to see the category "artists from London,Ontario" people get London ontario mixed up with the other London all the time, quite annoying, this would help things.Pumkinhead001 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Help!

The discussion about the naming of conservation-restoration has just been closed for no reason and this guy "Mike Selinker" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Selinker is now running crazy over the categories. Absurd, considering where that discussion was going and the fact you had stated it be re-listed. Isn't he way out of line? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

3 more Old Fooians

Hi Peter

At CfD March 9 "More uncommon Old Fooians", there was a consensus to rename 19 categories, but no consensus on 3 categories to which you had raised an objection: Old Amplefordians, Old Millfieldians and Old Fettesians.

I have taken up the CfD closer's invitation to promptly renominate them .. and since AFAICS, you were the only editor to raise a specific objection to those 3, I thought it appropriate to notify you individually.

The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 19#Discussion_.283_Old_Fooians.29, where your comments are welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, the new discussion was (AFAICS) the result of your specific objection to these 3 categories, which you distinguished from the other 19 in the CfD March 9 nomination. So I was hoping that you would use the new discussion to expand on the concerns you outlined at the March 9 CfD. I may have missed it, but so far I don't see any contribution from you in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 19#Discussion_.283_Old_Fooians.29. I am still hoping that you can add something to the debate :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Boruch Szlezinger

Hello,

Can you give your opinion on this subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boruch_Szlezinger ?

thank you --ZzcommeZz (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Matzko.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Inquisition post mortem

Thanks for your clarification concerning the physical form of the above, not in a roll. I have now corrected the article accordingly. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC))

Thomas Whorwood

Thanks. The info in various sources on his inheritance was contradictory, and in some clearly plain wrong. Your explanation and general help in cleaning up the page are much appreciated. I'm trying to cover a reasonable number of Stafforshire MPs between Reformation and Reform Act, so there'll inevitably be more errors yet. Sjwells53 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. I've been trying to round out articles where they are skimpy, as well as posting a few new ones. I'm trying to get some sort of coverage of economic, political, religious and domestic aspects. I've extended the article on Edward Sutton, 5th Baron Dudley a good deal, but felt unable really to pull together the material on his iron works (which was there already) and on his finances into a coherent whole, though clearly that has to be done. Maybe that's worth a look. Cheers and thanks again. Sjwells53 (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Further to above, thanks for the clarification. And the Prestwood article is very welcome too. There are a lot of Staffordshire villages needing coverage or real expansion - not all of them small. Sjwells53 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Feckenham Forest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Court of Exchequer and River Arrow

History of Shropshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rudge

Lövstabruk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Walloon  Done

Morfe Forest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Minster  Done

Worfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Leofric  Done

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)