User talk:Peterkingiron/Archive 3

Anarchist

Heya, I've noticed you've been contributing to articles similar to mine, i.e. related to activist/anarchist people. My article on Bruno Masse is threatened of deletion, could you please vote to keep it? You can vote [| here]. In solidarity! Lkeryl (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Krajina Towns Again

Hi there. If you remember some time ago there was an issue with the Krajina town catory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_29#Category:Former_Towns_of_RSK_1991-95. We have yet another problem and another vote as some Croats are not happy with this topic existing. Please add a vote or some input. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Towns_in_the_Former_RSK Thanks. (LAz17 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Hello Peter. You objected to merging that list ("Towns in the Former RSK") into the main article on the Republic of Serbian Krajina because it would make the latter even longer. Well, I have taken the liberty of copying the list to that main article, to show how it would fit there. I think that it doesn't add too much volume, while at the same time provides a richer context to our readers. :-)

If reliable sources on the subject are found, an article on the administrative subdivisions of the RSK -or its geography in general- could be interesting. However, it would be something entirely different from this simple list of towns. Its potential creation & writting would be entirely independent of this bare list's existence as a separate entry.

I really think that currently this list would be of more help to our readers if placed within the main article on the RSK. Of course, at a future time, it could always be moved to a more specific article, if one is created.

If seeing the above diff changes your mind -or not-, please consider revisiting that discussion to comment on this approach, and so help establish some degree of consensus. :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp's comments

Would you like to comment here? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bible and Spade

I noticed that you said this was published by a reliable publisher. That is because just before I AfD'd it, someone added a claim that it was published by Sage. That's wrong, it's published by Associated for Bible Research [1]. dougweller (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for having the courage to tread in the no-man's-land of Talk:Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II. All parties involved, including myself, have TLDR'ed it nearly to death - which has discouraged badly-needed neutral input. arimareiji (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SBS Transit Service 579

In this AfD, you added a note saying that the nomination may be defective. I didn't see any problem with the nom, but if you did see one, what was it? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence

On the category renaming point, I made a new suggestion and would welcome your thoughts. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BD

Hi. I just saw your message. Two more users have contacted me for the same reason. You can read the discussion in my talk page. As you can see my bot is not substituting Lifetime but just BD. BD is a bad redirect because it's name doesn't show that it uses defaultsort. BIRTH-DEATH-SORT is better. The lack of the information causes many editors to get confused and add defaultsort again. A very recent example is this one but they are more and I sometimes add these examples in Template talk: Lifetime. Moreover, I would like to inform you that there is no consensus for a preferable method, to go and substitute everything with one method against the other is something nonconstructive, it will make no difference what people see on the screen. It's like something runs AWB just to move stubs to the bottom of an article. Finally, I informed about my actions and thoughts in Template talk:Lifetime. I have made comments about everything concerning this template, warned about possible issues. You can participate in there to help us. If you like I can send the subject of BD to Redirects for Discussion (RfD) before continuing (or not) with by bot but I think the reasons I am substituting are clear and are a result of the discussion for Lifetime.

Replacing BD with Lifetime is ok to me. for the moment at least. The important thing right now is to get rid of BD and handle Lifetime later. So, edits for replacing BD are constructive. On the other hand, replacing DEFAULTSORT+the 2 categories with Lifetime has no consensus and I think is nonconstructive. When a new article is created you can use your prefereable method to add categories but please don't replace existing categories with Lifetime. After all, why Wikipedia has to render the categories each time someone load the article? Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In a manner of speaking, BD has already been merged with Lifetime. It is only a redirect to Lifetime. So you may continue to use {{Lifetime}} just not the shortcut BD. Cheers! DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the second time you have referred to this work as vandalism, which, whatever your point of view on using a template for categories, it most certainly is not. That to me is a personal attack and I think you should rewrite it immediately. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You may remove this message if you like. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A friendly advice

Hi again. I understand that you may be upset with my substitutions. I would like to recommend you to stay cool when the editing gets hot. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My steps were the following: I informed in the talk page of Lifetime that they are problems with BD, after some time I asked to be removed and I was adviced to create a bot. I applied for a bot and after a more than a month the bot was approved. I informed the talk page of Lifetime again. Many editors have seen it, including some of the people implementing AWB. Anyway, I am pretty sure that your problem is not BD itself but you want to keep Lifetime in articles, maybe if I was just renaming BD with Lifetime, you wouldn't have problem but I find many pros in completely substituting. Anyway, I hope we solve this by cooperating and calm discussion. Right now I am a bit tired, it's already late in here. Have a nice day/evening. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

July 29 in rail transport

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Townson (producer)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert Townson (producer), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Robert Tounson. 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) 23:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I made one easily reversible edit because of what the bot said. I would hardly say that calls for a request to be left alone by me. I was correctly informed by the bot, I just didn't know that you were working on a complex of articles, and that the searchbot's message would soon be irrelevant. It removed the bot's message. I will certainly be more careful to look for multi-article editing in the future as I'm sure you will assume my good-faith in the future. I find it incivil of you to characterize my actions as "messing around".Synchronism (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Check a discussion in Template talk:Lifetime

Hi. Please check a discussion in Template talk:Lifetime and write your opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Industrial revolution

What do you think of this table, Sir? Wallonia#The second industrial Power of the World I have also other figures and many "clever" tables in the Rioux's book. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

David C Watson AFD

"The above article (in David C C Watson) is currently subject to AFD." whats an AFD?--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFD means people are discussing possibly deleting the article. Also, please leave messages at the BOTTOM of talk pages, as I suggested at your page. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to work out this is the bottom of the page? I know it must be complicated for you, maybe theres a wiki article to explain this the bottom of a page you can read?--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You originally posted this at the top of Peterkingiron's talk page. Politzer moved it to the bottom. As you now know. dougweller (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad

Peterkingiron, sorry for my earlier posting about AfD on your page. That user had been vandalizing so I was watching his contribs, and when I noticed him posting on your page I went to see what it was; in the process of moving the post down to the bottom of the page I saw that he was asking a relatively simple question so I figured I might as well answer it (at this point I still had some hope of turning this user into a constructive contributor); I didn't intend for it to cause a fight on your talk page. That user has begun trolling, though, and it's probably best just to ignore him; when I tried to explain editing to him he just removed all my messages from his talk page and came to attack me at my talk page, pretending that none of my previous edits had ever happened.

Best, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oregrounds iron

I understand what you mean. I just red an article of Göran Rydén (University of Upsala) about The Walloon method in Sweden. In French but even in French I am forced to make an effort in order to understand the technical terms. You suggest me to create a category as for instance Walloon diaspora. I would erase the categories Wallonia and History of Wallonia. I erase now the latter. But, on the other hand, it is true the Walloon influence remained great during 17th 18th centuries according many authors I red? What do you think? Finally it became a myth. It is probabely better to make a page about Walloons of Sweden orsomething else (family names, religion, industry, the importance of the myths...). Merry Christmas and I begg your pardon... José Fontaine (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Americans and American football

Hi. Just so you know, when you made your comment in this CfD you were mistaken. Assuming you meant people from the United States when you said "Americans", you are wrong. Americans are not the only ones that play American football. Nor are they the only ones that call a sport football that is not soccer. Canadians and Europeans do as well.--Rockfang (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Parishes again

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of Wales Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of Europe Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Parishes of North America

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. "Parish" has different meanings in different localities. All categories should be clear if they contain civil (or geographical) parishes or church parishes. Note that this discussion of the same question (closed to divide the question) resulted in 5 Support rename votes, 1 Oppose vote, and 2 that abstained on most categories. I have looked at much more than these pages listed and the categories do all reflect civil parishes.--Carlaude ^(talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• All the English parishes were changed without opposition.
• Please note well, and Support if you can.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain a little what you meant by this senetnce in your opinion about the name change to the parishes? "No strong view on rest, but I see no need to change, since (except in the Channel Isles), parishes do not have local authority status.". In particular, I am surprised by the comment that these parish entities have no local authority status? Perhaps you mean that they have no second-level status which Districts or boroughs would have, but they do, as far as I know, have a status in the hierarchy of local government.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, but I do think they have some local authority status and powers, as they can levy a small (1p) rate from time to time. They do, however, get what powers they have handed down to them by the higher-level district or borough authority in which they are located. this page from the National Association for Local Councils website lists what powers they have. Do you think they are insufficient to give them local authority status?  DDStretch  (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

These other pages give more details: here and a document to be downloaded from here.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on your comment regarding categorization of villages. Did you mean only place the article into Villages in xxx when they are not also a community/parish or could an article like Burton, Pembrokeshire in your opinion be categorized as both?

Singing in the Spirit

I've created a redirect to Spontaneous worship#Singing in the Spirit but the article still needs improving and sourcing - please contribute. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton

Saved; thanks for your support. I intend to expand the article some time. My immediate motive for writing the article was that it was the only Grade II* listed building in Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire (which is currently a FLC) without an article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. This is a bit different as it was a purpose-built courthouse replacing the gatehouse (although of course previously the court had been in the gatehouse itself). In our neighbouring village of Daresbury, the former courthouse is adjacent to the pub, and has been integrated into the pub. There's all sorts of combinations! I have a few local sources which may help in the future expansion of the article. I'll have to explore when it became a hotel/pub; I guess sometime during the 19th century when the town of Runcorn itself was growing. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User categories

That's three times now you've incorrectly called for a speedy close to my CfD nominations. Do you know what a user category is? PC78 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:State cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico

As the creator of Category:State cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico, I would like to thank you for your proposals regarding the CfD discussion regarding that category, which I partially agree with. On the issue of which parent category it should be included in, I have presented two proposals of my own, on how to resolve the issue. For further details, please see the aforementioned CfD discussion page. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Move of Sir Edward Wortley Montagu to Edward Wortley Montagu (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)

I am not at all clear why you have changed the title of this article. The previous name was perfectly acceptable, but I supsect that you are an American, who does not know that persons with knighthoods are incorrectly addressed if their name is not prefixed by "Sir". Furthermore, being a Lord of the Treasury was only a short event in a long career. Why not Edward Wortley Montagu (Ambassador)? Articles on British politicians normally incorporate their title as a peer (if they had one), even if it was only granted at the end of their life. Would you be kind enough to undo your interfering? Just because Americans have no significant titles of honour, there is no reason why you should engage in imperialissm to force your views on other coutries. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand and appreciate your vexation at such a seemingly inappropriate change. I did elucidate the reason for the move in the article's revision history and you may also glance at the Edward Montagu (disambiguation) page, which has as its initial entry, Sir Edward Montagu, not Sir Edward Montagu. Similarly, even such familiar personalities as Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Philip Sidney are named without their knighthoods in the main title headers of their Wikipedia articles. As I've indicated, the Wikipedia Manual of Style directive regarding these matters is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage #5. Titles of Knighthood. You are, indeed, correct that "articles on British politicians normally incorporate their title as a peer", but solely in a specifically circumscribed form, i.e., "Sir Edward Hyde East, 1st Baronet". Stand-alone salutations, honorifics and knighthoods are not utilized in the context of Wikipedia. As to the parenthetical qualifier, it was simply a judgment call in using what appeared the most distinguished title. If the already-existing redirect, Edward Wortley Montagu (diplomat), or not-yet-in-existence Edward Wortley Montagu (ambassador), Edward Wortley Montagu (MP) or the full Edward Wortley Montagu (Member of Parliament) seems more fitting, than such a move can also be effected. If you have additional concerns in this matter, I would welcome further communication.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fee tail

I have re-added your para on literary examples, plus some more - see the talk. Let's keep an eye on it in case the lawyers try to remove it again! Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

John Grey (died 1709)

I am a newbie, and would like to know the reasons behind adding "died 1709" to John Grey's name in the article's title. --BlackZeroes (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Please bear with me for asking rather trivial questions: Isn't the use of date of death in suffix as disambiguator a bit unusual for Wikipedia? Are there other examples where date of death was used in suffix as disambiguator? Also, has this thing discussed elsewhere on WP? --BlackZeroes (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Early Jewish Christians

Peter, please see Category talk:Early Hebrew Christians as you may be interested following the recent CFD on Jewish Christians. I'm inclined to follow another editor's recommendation to replace it with "1st century Christians of Jewish descent". - Fayenatic (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Power weaving

Actually in hand- but I am being diverted a bit by the battle I am fighting with Wikipedia:Non-free content, and in particular deletion proposals for Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 22.(please do comment- if you wish) I have been writing a mill template so I can spread some of the images onto separate pages. Template:Infobox Mill building‎. The textile machine industry was plagued with patents, and patent wars and who invented what still stirs passions today. viz Arkwright. Looms seems to be no exception- but I have discovered a excellent online source of 19th century books at [2], so good that it is also a distraction. I have details on the Roberts loom and the Northrop loom but it will take a little longer to put it together. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Greville

Google the name and you'll hit some...interesting...threads, mostly on genealogy message boards, about him. I'm just nervous that he'll show up and insist on having an article about himself, not realizing that BLP can't protect him from his own history. It's fascinating the gyrations some people go through (on both sides of the Atlantic) trying to connect themselves to the nobility. Choess (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Bedford

I'm reverting your addition of "William Russell, Lord Russell (1639--1683) (Courtesy title)" to the list of dukes. Maybe such lists ought to include everyone who was ever an heir-apparent to a peerage, but generally they don't. Inclusion in this form suggests to the casual reader that he was a duke who bore the style "Lord Russell" in place of a ducal title! —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What about putting Lord Russell in "See also"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a policy matter that ought to be discussed broadly. —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

MP succession boxes

Hi, I had actually always used and preferred the form you have suggested, and had also usually replaced other variants with it, unless I noticed increasingly more new boxes with the "alongside field" in the last days. Although I personally dislike this field - it makes the box unnecessary wide - I decided, I believe it was two days ago, to switch to it, generally on articles where it already existed or where I inserted a new box. I had presumed it a new standard, however your notice shows me, that that might apparently be not so. In future I will avoid the field again and convert it, if I will come across it (naturally only on UK/British articles). Thanks for your message and by the way you might also drop a note to User:BrownHairedGirl, as I remember that she has used the "alongside field" too. Regards

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I have a little annotation too. :-) On your example, I have seen, that you have inserted the contemporary sitting MPs into the "years field" (the same what the "alongside field" does and another thing what bothered me at it), while it is otherwise always added in the "title field" - after the constituency. Perhaps you could modify this on your template. Greetings

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See a thread I have started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#alongside_parameter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

spelling: fibre/fiber

Sure. Would love to. If you would let me know which article you're referencing. Cheers. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Edgeway and Flangeway - which is which?

Please have a look at Talk:Wagonway and Wagonway and see if explanatory text regarding this difference is correct. Tabletop (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

William Fawkener

Do you have any idea what the maternity was of his daughters? I've been beating the bushes on Google Books trying to figure out, and the only thing I can find is that he seems to have had a second wife named Elizabeth. Choess (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't prove it, but I'm inclined to think that Shoemaker just botched that particular date, and he's referring to the duel of 22 May 1786 between Fawkener and Townshend. The trial for criminal conversation also occurred in 1786. Choess (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

London Gazette

Hi Peter, when refering to the London Gazette you can use the following template <ref> {{ LondonGazette | issue = | startpage = | date = | accessdate = }} </ref> . As startpage you should enter the number given in the "Go to Page" - field, and not the number of the page within the respective issue (like I did some time), to avoid wrong links. Especially in later years, both numbers can differ very extremly ... Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya, sorry, I didn't want sound bluff, it was only meant as a suggestion - by the way, I have another one :-) Provided you edit Wikipedia with Firefox as browser and you don't know it already, you might find this addon [3] interesting; it's not only a very good solution to store, sort and use templates, but also offers other helpfull features. Regards

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at [4] you will see that the number of the page within the issue is 24, while the number given in the "Go to Page" - field is 1752. Going out apparently from the 19th century all pages of the issues of one year were linked under ongoing numbers, so when using the first number in the template, unfortunately it will not lead to page 24, but to page 1 of the issue. I hope I'have explained it more understandable ... Greetings

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Venetian nationalism

I particularily appreciated your proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 16 about moving Veneto nationalism to Venetian nationalism, and the category likewise. I asked an administrator to make these moves as I think that they are fairly uncontroversial, anyway I would appreciate to see your opinion at Talk:Veneto nationalism. --Checco (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Windham Carmichael-Anstruther, 8th Baronet

Hi Peter

Thanks for responding to my request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Thomas_Cochrane.2C_10th_Earl_of_Dundonald for help with Sir Windham Carmichael-Anstruther, 8th Baronet.

Most of what you did looks great (thanks!), but I was puzzled by the first bit of this edit, in which you replaced a direct link to the relevant page on Leigh Rayment's website with the generic {{rayment-hc}}. I can see no advantage in a less specific link, so I have reinstated the more precise one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Roman society

The original page split (which created the article in question) was reversed in July and I felt that it was not something to push with the editor that seemed most vested in the article. Everything you said...I agree with, especially the part about the "Military" section. Unfortunately there are some "Ownership" issues with that particular article and I have decided not to edit there further. We were able stay cool and not edit war and I actually like the editor who reversed it. We have worked together since then and I value his contributions to my articles and adopted articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to resubmit this article once I have sorted out the issues with the references.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first! I won't do this again.

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Clent Hills

Hi Peter, if you have written, contributed to, or edited the Clent Hills article, please take a moment to see: Talk:Clent Hills. --Kudpung (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

European Hot 100

It's kind of clumsy to have "singles" twice in the title, but "(name of chart) number-one singles" is the standard for Number-one singles categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Formerly papal congregations → former Roman Catholic church buildings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Roman Catholic" is much clearer term than "papal." In the Middles Ages, the date of church buildings may be more readily determinied than the date of the congregations, if different. This will also give the category a parallel name to like categories, e.g. of the 13th, 14th, and 15th century.-- Carlaude ^talk 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Upmerge all to equivalent church building categories (only): Firstly "papal" is in accurate since the churches were not established by any pope, but usually founded by a manorial lord and consecrated by the diocesan bishop, without any involvement from Rome. Secondly, any church built in England in the 11th, 12th or 13th century will have been Catholic until the Reformation and then Protestant (unless is was a dissolved monastery). "Congregations" is also rubbish, since the articles will essentially be about the buildings, though possibly also about the present congregations that worship in them. This is a bare-faced attempt by papists to colonise the Church of England builings. The same would apply to Lutheran Churches in Germany. I failed to find the alleged Italian example, but it should not appear, since the headnote of all three says it is about Protestant church buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• By the way— while you are voting to Upmerge— all your arguments exacly favor the proposed rename. The renames proposes (as no one seems to notice) is to [[:Category:##th-century former Roman Catholic church buildings]]. I am also curous what you mean by "papists"? Do you mean a Roman Catholics or anti-Roman Catholics? --Carlaude ^talk 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hagley

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 3! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see [[talk:Hagley]. --Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories for films by length

The nomination has been expanded since you commented, so you may want to revisit the CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

River teme

Hi Peter. As you probably know, I've been going through hundreds of Worcestershire related articles in order to give the Worcs project a kick start and highlight some articles that may be in need of some improvement. My own areas of expertise are education, and the Malverns, but I have now arrived at the River Teme. I'm an outsider on waterways, therefore after having read the article from a 'visitor' angle, and then reading the long debate on the talk page, I have come to the personal conclusion that the section on Commercial navigation has become more of a 550 word debate on which publications are right and which are erroneous. I'm not sure if all this is of interest to someone wanting basic encyclopedic information. I don't doubt the sincerity of all concerned with research for the verifiable published material, but I would personally be satisfied with with a short mention something on the lines of: While it is possible that some stretches of the river have been navigable in earlier times, this remains a subject of continued research by experts on the subject. I would be inclined to leave it at that, with references to all the verifiable published works and let the readers make their own minds up. See: Talk:River Teme where I have left a note.--Kudpung (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Newport, 1st Baron Torrington

Hi Peter, thanks for the correction - apparently I have looked at the wrong headline. Obviously I need someone occasionally watching my fingers. Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article was the only one - yet; so you have prevented possible future error already at the root. The book I had used has on the relevant page two headlines: above "Commissioners of Customs, Excise and Stamps, &c. in England" and below and a little bit smaller "Commisssioners of Customs in England". (Perhaps I have also a problem with my eyes). Unfortunately I was futhermore lazy and haven't scrolled down more, otherwise I would have surely discovered that the next section begins with "Commissioners of Excise in England". :-)

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Two things more that should have catched my eyes ... time to buy glasses.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Chatham-Kent

• I have set up a move request; survey at Talk:Chatham-Kent#Survey. Perhaps you could move your recent comment to that section. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Chatham-Kent, Ontario?

I already make comments at the CfD, And this is to the opposing users a deal, if everyone supported the rename back to the article name Chatham-Kent, Ontario to avoid confusion and we won't talk about renaming back again. Then the existing discussion from 2007 about renaming from Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Chatham-Kent will be removed from the section of the talk page. Then, after that, them maybe I or someone will withdrew the nomination out of the discussion. And on the talk page, I believed that User:Skeezix1000 has already agreed to move the article. So, could you write to User:Skeezix1000 on the user's talk page, that the user has "agreed" to rename Chatham-Kent that causes confusion. After you talk User:Skeezix1000 on the user's talk page, let me know if you talk to User:Skeezix1000 then everything will be settled and I or someone will withdrew out of the nomination out of the discussion. Then everything will be resolved quickly. Thanks for all the very hard discussion and I or someone will be withdrew out of the discussion soon. Steam5 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

West Worcestershire (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi Peter! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing attention to references, style, updating, or further development. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:West Worcestershire (UK Parliament constituency), and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Steel

Steel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Worcestershire

Hi Peter! I am including you in this message because your previous comments on various issues have been most helpful. Since the recent creation of the Worcestershire project, several editors are making a concentrated effort to improve the articles and the overall coverage of the county. Many of us are learning as we go and since some of these issues regard Wikipedia and/or parent project policy and how we should interpret them, it may be a good idea to discuss them with a view to obtaining a consensus before we do things that may be wasting our time, or undoing the work of others. Please refer to these discussion items in particular:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire#DELETION - places with names...
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire#Parish list template navboxes
• Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#What should be the purpose of a navigation template? (users Brian Kenedig, Pavel Vozenilek)

and join in the debate on the Worcestershire project talk page. If you would also like to join the project as a member, please do not hesitate to do so - we need all the help we can get. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Malvern, Worcestershire

Hi Peter. The parish is listed with the title Malvern Town Council in both the town council and the district websites, and it administers that parish. However, this effectively leaves the CP without another official name. Part of the problem arises because they are using old OS maps on their websites that show the names of different parts of Malvern in different font size hierarchies, that do not correspond accurately to today's situation. I think it's been established that my earlier suggestion some months ago for merging was rather hasty. The Malvern, Worcestershire article is of course the main one. Great Malvern since its merging with the independent urban district of Malvern Link in 1900, although probably the original town, has no legal status whatsoever today as a place. The area known today as Great Malvern, might be the town centre, but has no legal boundaries whatsoever, and is in fact cut in half by two council wards. It is therefore now simply a neighbourhood of Malvern, and the one that happens to contain the town centre. The articles about the other neighbourhoods such as Malvern Link and Barnards Green etc., should of course stay (in compliance with Wiki policy concerning named places). To merge them into Malvern would anyway make the Malvern article unduly long - much in the same way as the Malvern Water section was split off into its own new article. To get a complete overview however, it will need reading the entire talk page, in particular: Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Malvern Town vs Malvern Town Council vs Civil Parish, and the article in all its sections - many sections elaborate on, and complement the others. I would strongly oppose any suggestions for merging the Malvern, Worcestershire article with any others, or renaming it.--Kudpung (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Blacksmith

Hello again...In your note on the CFD on smiths I noticed your dislike for the term profession, which is perfectly legitimate, but I noticed today that the blacksmith article's infobox states that a blacksmith is a profession. You might want to revise it, and any other of the smithing articles, if they are wrong. Regards! Wizard191 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Pershore College

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 3! An article within the scope of the WikiProject Worcestershire has been proposed for merging. Please see the discussion at Talk:Pershore College#Merge proposal, and leave your comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cofton Hackett

Hi Peter, See: Talk:Cofton Hackett A look at the article's revision history will show periods of sometimes more than 50 back-to-back edits in les than 30 minutes by an editor who copies and pastes much of the content - probably not even mouse-click copying but actually typing it all manually. Most of it is from sources that are either out of copyright (eg VCH), or orther Wiki articles. so although there is no direct copyvio, it's still not the way to create an article. An understanding of the editor's background will reveal that the work is most certainly done in good faith in the best of intentions, although from the hand of another, it would be bordering on vandalism. However, the Wikipedia, however sympathetic, cannot bend the rules for people with health related issues, in spite of their barnstars.--Kudpung (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Evesham Technology

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 3! It is suggested that a pre PROD, pre AfD, or pre Speedy discussion should take place before opening a deletion process for Evesham Technology. Please visit the article if you can, and leave your comments and suggestions at Talk:Evesham Technology--Kudpung (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you call for closing a newly opened discussion thread...

I respectfully suggest that you review WT:NCNT#Name-Ordinal-Country construction revisited and reread the discussion there, just to make sure you understand the point being raised. It was probably very late where you are when you added your comment, and I will refrain from passing any judgment on the value of your contributions to the discussion. I just want to make sure my question is understood before its dismissal is advocated. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Thank you for your comment in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_30#Ottoman_Macedonia_.28Greece.2FROM.2FBulgaria.29. I would like you to look over subsequent discussion at this heading, as I think that the subcategorization of historical entities by modern state boundaries would set a terrible precedent that would affect tens or hundreds of thousands of articles. Thanks. --macrakis (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire meeting?

Worcestershire Project get-together
I'm in the UK on a rare trip to my home town in Worcestershire. If all or anyone from the project would like to meet up, please let me know. I'll be returning to Asia on 3 October.--Kudpung (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter, there are only 10 members of the Worcs project and I have contacted them all. They represent pretty much the sum total of the active editors/contributors to all the county related articles. I don't mind touching base with anyone individually over a coffee somewhere before I return to Asia.--Kudpung (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Chris)

Understand

From you argument in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_9#Category:Female_basketball_players_by_century I would have guessed you meant "Keep" instead of "Merge". Debresser (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 9#Great Northern Railway

Tassedethe's preferred option is to use "United States"; did you mean to support this? --NE2 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew)

Since you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew), you might be interested in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cheers, Cunard (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peterkingiron. I just thought I'd respond here to a comment you made on the above AfD. When listing multiple pages, as in this case, the AfD notice only needs to be listed on the first-named article, as long as the others are listed at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion, as was done here. For verification, see WP:BUNDLE. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tinning

Hi Peterkingiron, I was wondering if you could help me out in this article. I've merged tinning and tinplate, but the history sections need to be synced. There are some discrepancies between the two and I can't view all of the sources. I know this is right up your alley, so I thought you might be able to help me out. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

It seems to me your argument in the (consequetive) discussions Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_19#Category:Chilean_scholars_and_academics and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_19#Scholars_and_academics contradict each other. Anyway, I agree with the latter. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dictators

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire meetup

Peter, it looks as if you are the only one interested. I am based in Malvern but if you wish we can me anywhere in the county. I fly back to Thailand on Thursday 3 oct. Do contact me by e-mailthrough Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Pandy

There are three places called Pandy in Wales. I think what you need is a disambiguation page

• Pandy, Abergavenny, Gwent
• Pandy, Llangollen, Clwyd
• Pandy, Llanbrynmair, Powys

An equivalent action would be to merge Avon into River because Avon just means 'river' in Welsh. JMcC (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. I had thought that there was a proposal to merge Pandy with fulling because the meaning was the same in the two languages. Quite correctly when you now type in "Pandy" into search box, you get a list of all possible meanings of this word including the odious Andy Pandy. No-one is going to type "Pandy (disambiguation)". In the Pandy article there is now also a mention that the word is the Welsh for a fulling mill and this links to the fulling article. This is sufficient. This means that Pandy no longer should redirect to the article on Fulling. The following sentence is no longer necessary "Pandy" redirects here. For other uses, see Pandy (disambiguation)." Instead an extra link should be added in the sentence "The Welsh word for a fulling mill is pandy." You can now also zap Pandy (disambiguation) as superfluous.JMcC (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone else also had the idea that typing in Pandy should get you to the page about fulling. I have reversed it as we agreed. Obviously in Welsh Wikipedia Pandy should give an article on fulling, but in en-wiki almost everyone will want a list of places called Pandy in Wales. JMcC (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to comment on Permanent Way

Greetings. I added a few comments to the discussion that you contributed to [5]. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've answered you in small part. (I looked up your question on cast iron wheels, but alas, my set of Oxford's "A History of Technology", where I expected to find the answer, is incomplete.) Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire

Peter, please accept my apologies for the confusion. Anyway, my super AOL/BT broadband has been down for four days, and I'm flying back home to Thailand tomorrow, Saturday, 3 oct.--Kudpung (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry we could not make it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Without reading the details of the case, I of course assume, because John William Willis-Bund was a Worcestershire man, that his views were correct and the Welsh gang were wrong ;-o -- PBS (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a joke I thought I could share with you on your talk page, but I have removed it from the talk page of the man, because there are bound to be people who will see it as offensive and I don't want to offend anyone. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Stamp mills

Wind-powered stamp mills exist, such as this one in France. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

River categories

I have added an alternative propsal to a few of the river categories' nominations. I think it has much merit. Please visit the discussion(s) again and add your commentary/opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your specialty

Hello, thanks for your input on the Clare matter. I agree with you. On another topic, I notice your specialty in the iron industry. I was wondering if perhaps you also have an interest in the early ironmasters of Sussex, who were behind the casting of the first iron cannons. I know the industry later moved away from the Weald in search of cheaper and more plentiful sources of power for the blast furnaces, but I'm interested in the evolution of it. If this is your area of specialty, are there any online sources you might recommend? Many thanks. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't asking you to share the things you've created outside of WP, but as I've written on the subject of the Wealden ironmasters, I was simply wondering what the best online sources are, or for that matter any books on the subject. I have a history degree and a longstanding interest in the subject. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the references. I had actually looked at some of these before and cited them in a previous wikipedia piece. [6] Take care. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This article is more my speciality, as well as my professional background. [7] By the way, I certainly concur with your statement about wikipedia needing all the responsible editors it can get. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the William Levett piece. It's been quite awhile since I've revisited it, and I'll consider your suggestions with care. I did read some of the sources you mentioned during its preparation, but couldn't find them in online format and so didn't cite them. I will now. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions and ultimate solution to the Earl of Clare page. Mugginsx (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 20#Rulers in Europe by century

This CfD has genarated a lot of talk but only one vote. Nor has anyone proposed an alternative to my proposal. Please read and consider voting. Thanks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• So you prefer having viceroys and regents mixed in with monarchs, and not just in their own category?
• By the way a monarch can "have various titles — king or queen, prince or princess... emperor or empress... or even duke or grand duke" and the many other titles as listed in two charts later in the same article. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• As I indicated before (9:08 pm, 21 October) I still do not understand what you are suggesting. Your statements conflict. How would "rulers... make a... parent, for monarchs, head of government" at all? How would we "reverse merge" and yet "these... be parent categories, with few actual articles"? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• So it would be like this?

• Category:10th-century rulers

• Category:10th-century rulers in Europe

• Category:10th-century monarchs in Europe

• Category:10th-century rulers in Asia

• Category:10th-century monarchs in Asia

If so then I will point out that that is the way it is arranged now-- at least for the categories under discussion. If we did a "reverse merge" per your vote then it would undo most of this. If you want it to be like this then you should change your vote to "keep." PS-- I do not understan your comments re a "continuing monarchs category" either. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Traditional/folk music world-wide

Thanks for your helpful and perceptive comments re discussion of this category. The thing is unsatisfactory but your remarks point very much in the direction things could go. You'll understand that many music articles are run by single-issue editors who have no interest in the "big picture" and are unable to see the hundreds of similar articles that have already been sorted out of some, say, too general category, or who feel importance is boosted by including "nested" duplicate categories. There are categories that overlap, that use different terminologies ("style" versus "genre" etc.) whose names are not clear and so forth. Nothing can be done at category level, it seems, without unanimity, and authoritative sources are not required. I obviously do not like to do all the sorting while knowing I am leaving the same difficulties to happen again. Your interest is very welcome and, if it strays towards this wiki-area in particular, I'd value your thoughts. Redheylin (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I ought to add that the matter of category and genre looks, from below, a matter of importance: it really matters to some that the music be labelled "folk", not "traditional", or vice versa - sometimes for opposite reasons at the same time. The name I selected was designed purely to forestall the kind of rude objections you'll discover on my page. These matters often conceal POV forks in near-duplicate material. Redheylin (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

George Wombwell (disambiguation)

Hello. Just to let you know that this has been nominated for speedy deletion, with {db-disambig}. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Masters of the Horse

I appreciate your contribution to the new discussion on changing magister equitums, and thought your comment in the earlier discussion received insufficient attention. I've been working to get the error corrected since October 24. Since my tone and objectives have been misconstrued in this matter, I wanted to leave you a note to make it clear that my response to your most recent comment was meant to clarify, not be argumentative. Your perspective is helpful and very welcome. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wapentakes ...

Hello Peterkingiron. If you have a moment, can you revisit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 31#Category:Hundreds of Yorkshire and check whether you would be happy with a change to the format "Category:Ancient subdivisions of X" or not? If not, I shall likely relist the discussion as while there is consensus to rename there wouldn't be agreement on how best to do this. Many thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, someone beat me to it, so it turned out to be moot anyway. But many thanks for getting back to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination)

Hello! Concerning this article, please see here, i.e. the specific topic is the title of at least one book. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI-- 20th-century people by nationality again

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_19#Category:20th-century Indian people/Category:21st-century Indian people

Category:20th-century Indian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:21st-century Indian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Extremely redundant and unnecessary. In addition, it has been created to include only notable people (according to the creator), which is laughable because he adds it only to articles of people he considers notable personalities (both categories contain only a few names), even though they are not. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per recent and consistent past consensus here. This has been disscussed twice in the last few months. See the August 14 and June 29 CfDs Isn't there a limit to how many times this can be done? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Byron

I am concerned that what is happening with Byron and Tennyson is people are trying to get around standard classification used by many, many groups because of whatever reason (they don't like it?) instead of changing the naming convention in general. I am afraid that people are taking a discussion that was based on having someone like Samuel Clemens being named as Mark Twain on his page (as the library choose to classify him as Mark Twain) and using it to rationalize these ideas. Perhaps there should be an RfC to put in the author's naming convention that classification by libraries (like the Library of Congress) has a lot of weight when determining names? Then, at least, we would be more in line with more prominent encyclopedias and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

«each of the 13 Barons Byron also used the title of whom several were notable enough to have an article in WP» — Actually, now all 13 Barons have articles, as do some of their relatives. Enjoy! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

«naval officers are not "military"» — That may be partly TransAtlantic differences in English dialects, and partly time differences. Without doubt it applied to the time and place setting of the article you edited, a 19th century Royal Navy officer's bio. In modern US-speak (see Wiktionary's wikt:military), military covers all the armed forces including navy, not just ground forces, and I suspect this is an overall trend rather than a growing split. I could be wrong. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! (At last! Someone who can explain themself, AND does explain themself.) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lionel Walden (disambiguation)

Hello. Just to let you know, this dab's been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. I've added a hatnote to the redlink and blue link it's mentioned on to the primary page. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Best wishes and keep up all your good work, Boleyn3 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

King of France and of Navarre

Hello! The discussion is also taking place at Talk:Louis XVIII of France#Roi de France et de Navarre. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Malvern - GA nomination

Hi Peter ! We now have a first review for GA. On the whole it doesn't look too bad. As you know, I am a local resident in absentia, and as a published author, a 'prose artist', but anything you can do to improve the language or address some of the more technical points as quickly as possible would be much appreciated. Any work on the new referencing system does not affect the overall quality and scope of the article for GA but you may be able to put some of the wrong referencing things right and offer some suggestions on the other points made by the reviewer. It would be great for the Worcs project to have a GA of this envergure in its repertoire. See Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#GA Review - and Happy New Year!--Kudpung (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we've all had a go at the recommended improvements for GA. Would someone care to have a final proof read please? See comments on Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1--Kudpung (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for your comments. However, at this stage it is probably better to address and fix the reviewer's requirements than to search and find more fault with the article that none of us can fix within the time limit. .Worse articles than this have passed GA. Basically any new points raised now will just mean wholesale slaughter of chunks of the text, unless you can find fixes for them.--Kudpung (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi. I think we have reached the point where all the reviewer's original points have been addressed. Apart from proof reading and correcting any glaring errors, let's try to achieve GA with the article as is. See the revierwers latest comment at Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Next_set_of_comments. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern Girls College - Malvern St James

I could probably rework this article without much difficulty. A suggestion would be to name it Malvern St James, with a redirect from Malvern Girls College. However, I'm very tied up at the moment with the Malvern article and I'm going to away for a couple of days this week.--Kudpung (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I will leave this to you, when you have time: it does not seem urgent. The redirect would be created automatically by moving it. My comment was intedned to stimulate the main anonymous editor to get to work. Certainly Malvern is more important. If there are more issues to be tackeled on that, note it on the GA talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a draft article ready for the move. You are most welcome to check it out at User:Kudpung/Malvern St James (draft)

John Hanbury (1664-1734)

Thanks, but I wasn't sure on how to name the article. Other pages had the link to Hanbury had him as Hanbury (the elder), but the problem was that Hanbury is the second John Hanbury from the family. Some books mention him as John Hanbury II and his grandson as John Hanbury III, but it doesn't seem to be their birth names. If you can disambiguate him better than birth dates, which aren't great, then I'd appreciate it. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

slightly confusing typo

I'm always risking Muphry's Law when I say something like this, but your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corsham regis says "the rest solution" instead of (I assume) "the best solution". I figured it was worth mentioning, since it makes it a little bit difficult to figure out the meaning. tedder (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

MGC Malvern, Worcestershire

Hi Peterkingiron/Archive 3! It has been suggested that an article you have created, edited, or commented on be moved and renamed. You are invited to join the debate and leave your opinion here: Talk:Malvern Girls' College#Move

Malvern

Hi Peter. Some of the content of the Malvern article, especially the intro, was written as a workaround (rather than invite an argument) to the rather strong comments of one user who asserted that Malvern is just not a place or a civil parish, or a town, at all, and the beginnings of an edit war were brewing. It's no pleasure to me to get involved in heated argumentsand/or edit wars in this encyclopedia, and that particuar contributor, although very competent in the use of editing tools, has an extraordinary history of conflict, often bordering on WP:CIVIL. Maybe we can satisfy everyone's expectations and give ourselves a pat on the back if we get GA for Malvern. The bigger an article is, the more difficult it is to pass all the requirements (I know of articles that are little longer than stub size that have got GA).
What we need to do now is to stop all editing to Malvern (as requested by the reviewer), to give her a chance to complete her mission. IMHO, at this stage we should be looking at reasons to help it pass rather than introduce more possible grounds for failure, or more work that this not required for GA, but that will have to comply if changes are made now. According to her most recent statement today, the article is now very, very close to passing. If the Malvern article passes, we will have a benchmark for work on other major articles in the Worcestershire project such as (Worcestershire, Worcester, Redditch, Bromsgrove, Evesham, Kidderminster, Pershore, etc.) some of which are in a catastrophic state and desperately need attention. I will be in the UK in my home town of Malvern again in April (I live in Asia) and I will be using much of the time to scour the county for archives, records, and photos, as I did for Malvern last September. In this context, if you would like to make a 'shopping list' I would be happy to drive round the county, get meetings again with mayors, town clerks, councillors, and local historians, and check out the libraries and the WRO.--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All the reviewer's points have been addressed now, and are waiting for her final verdict. I've also changed the intro slightly according to your suggestions. But that will have to be the stop for edits now for a day or two.--Kudpung (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern GA, failing...

Hi Peter,

Gyro and Wotnow have gone to a lot of trouble over this new referencing system, but it probably came at the wrong moment after the article had already been submitted for GA. It's now created a bit of a muddle and is seriously interfering with the reviewer's efforts to get the article GA'd before the time limit runs out and has to be failed. It would be great if you were able to chime in and do anything possible to sort these multiple issues out as quickly as possible - I'm afraid that I am completely useless and unable to help with it. See: Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Final comments. Other than correcting the references, please do not make any other edits at this stage.

Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershierre, Warwickshierre, and Everyshierre

Hello Peterkingiron/Archive 3! A non-British user seems to be attempting to suggest that the Brits are not pronouncing their own British place names correctly, and appears to believe that it is a policy of Wikipedia to instruct the Brits, through the use of the IPA, how British English should be pronounced. He/she also seems to be of the opinion that it is Wikipedia policy to regard British English by default as a rhotic language, which it is not. Some British Wikipedians are trying to avoid an edit conflict and have requested my support. I have added my comments to the debate the non-British user has has started in defence of his/her multiple, WP:BOLD? changes to IPA pronunciations of British place names. As a professional linguist I accord every version of English its own particular merits and my position here strictly concerns the way in which the IPA is interpreted and applied in the Wikipedia, and how the current policy may need to be changed through a truly representative consensus. If you would like to help resolve this issue, please see User talk:Kudpung#IPA, RP, etc. and User talk:Lfh#Warwickshire to get the background. Maybe you could then chime in with your views on the subject at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Rhoticity in place names. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)