User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. CWC 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I severely disagree with the idea of listing university rankings for ~20 years across discontinued rankings. Users want concurrent, fast info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

References for university league tables[edit]

Hi there. I notice that you've recently been a range of rankings to articles on British universities. Would it be possible for you to add citations for all of the currently unreferenced figures? I mean, you must have a source yourself, to have included them.

Per WP:V, these numbers need sourcing so that these can be verified. I'm sure you've been striving to keep the numbers accurate, but even some of the cited figures are occasionally wrong. Thanks. — mholland (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please correct any typo's you spot, and let me know, as they're probably down to cut'n'paste errors at this end (while pasting in references). As to sources:

The full "Guardian", "Sunday Times", "Independent" and "Compelete University Guide" history can be obtained by following the references. OCR or cut-n paste into a spreadsheet and check away.

Note: The pre 2003 Guardian rankings are based on teaching standards e.g.,11985,723214,00.html

I've noticed a few differences between "Independent" and "Compelete University Guide" rankings (In 2009 it's the sort order were the scores tie e.g vs, Currently double checking 2008. Also I've spotted two editions of the same Guardian table, one has a few of the newer institutions missing, so the Ranks differ, but the scores are the same e.g. the 2004 book, printed 2003, is missing Oxford Brookes and Westminster, but they can be seen in the on-line table for the year, and the Telegraph unibigpic.jpg image below.

For "The Times Good University", were you can't source an on-line copy, pick one up in paper format (Details on this page). Generally a non current copy can be obtained for £2.00, from a charity shop, or £0.01 + p&p from Amazon. From "1998" each guide details the previous years / publication's rank.

If you have the time the original paper's can be found on-line e.g.


  • The Times archive can work out expensive, The Guide / Tables are serialised over several days / articles. It all started in October 2002, second edition May 2003....
  • The "Newstext" site will only return a complete set of search results once you have signed in / have credit.
  • The Title year is generally the published year + 1. With the exception of 2000-1, were the same Times table can be found with both titles.
  • A number of bodies have scanned copies of the historic league tables out on the web e.g. Telegraph table of tables 2003 (references previous years tables): but the title year or even publication may not be correct, need to cross reference a section of the ranks / scroes to a reliable source.
  • See League tables of British universities

Sign your postings[edit]

First, when you post any comment on a talk page, like this, please sign your posting with four tildes: ~~~~. Also, please do not put your comments in the middle of a posting by someone else, since that makes it look like they made the comment rather than you. It is best to start a new section when you are starting a new discussion. Second, why are you complaining in mid-April about an edit from January 4 ???? I did not originally add the "citation needed" templates. In fact I removed them, then re-added them, since a lot of unreferenced claims were being made. A wikilink to another Wikipedia article is not a "reference" since Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, and thre is nothing to make sure that each claim in a summary like this is supported by references in the other article linked to. Both articles are likely to be in a continual state of flux, independent of the other. Each article should have reliable sources to support controversial claims, especially about disputed priority of invention.Thirs, please provide a link to the posting you are talking about, like I did above, so the other person does not have to waste a lot of time paging back through all the edits to get to the one under discussion. Thanks for helping to improve the article. Edison (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Acorn Computers#NewsPad[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, You have new messages at Talk:Acorn Computers#Tablet PC / eNewspaper - Prototypes.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Invitation to join WikiProject RISC OS[edit]

Green cogwheel.svg Hi,! Some of your edits indicate an apparent interest in RISC OS. Therefore, you may be interested in joining WikiProject RISC OS. We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to RISC OS, its hardware and software. No commitment to editing is required.
  • If you'd like to join, please visit the project page and add your name
  • If not, please ignore this invitation—and hopefully continue unhindered by this proposition

Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Jschnur. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Scoto-Norman, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jschnur (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Undone: "Scoto-Saxon" appears in the same OED 'scoto-' etymology referenced earlier -- (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Content removed[edit]

We do realize that the person now using this IP, who receives this message, may not be the person who posted the content. We apologize for any confusion this may cause; we are required to give this notice and have no other means of attempting to reach the contributor.

Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

< < Removed > >

Just spotted your message, that material was originally posted by a different IP e.g.

Difference between revisions -Revision as of 11:27, 11 June 2009 -

I did revert some vandalism to the content in 2010, but haven't touched the page since, so not the source of the 2013 content your DMCA takedown request refers to:

Difference between revisions - Revision as of 16:00, 27 March 2010 (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but the notice I was asked to provide users of your IP address relates to the addition of the original content, here: [1]. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, but looking more closely at it, I see that all you added there was a list of books. So I do need to go back to the drawing board and apologies for misidentification. You would be welcome to remove the notice anyway, but please feel free to do so. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Pruned more than removed (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Vikings (TV series), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


GCSE / CSE / O-Level / Grade inflation ....[edit]

Hey Buddy,

This entire mutual edit deleting and restoring is starting to get on my nerves and I am sure it is also getting on your nerves as well. Drop me an e-mail @ and we can discuss because otherwise we either get mad or banned for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a section to your talk page earlier, listing the issues I have with your edits ( User_talk: ) but to duplicate them here:

Please stop removing quoted and cited text from the OECD and Department of Education, and replacing it with factually incorrect opinion. Please read the reliability and sources pages linked above before continuing. (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


  • However ever many times you hit revert there will still only be 10 years, not 20, between 1996 and 2006, you can verify that one on your fingers, no toes required..
  • The figures in the table I'm building: English O-Level and CSE Mathematics entrants 1977-9 are for years 1977, 1978 and 1979 (those little blue numbers after by title will take you to a LINK with the original numbers in), please leave the years alone.
  • The figures for 8+ passes, in another little table I'm building "Percentage of School-Leavers in England obtaining 'n' O-level(A-C) or CSE grade 1 pass", are: 4.5 and 4.7 - again follow the magic blue numbers to the source, and leave the numbers alone.
  • The first GCSE awards were in June 1988, so there is no pre 1988.
  • The number of subjects, syllabus content, assessment, ..... have changed considerably since those proposed in 1986, the number of subjects has increased from the ~33 in 1998, to over 120 in the list you keep removing the formatting from, the A* was introduced in 1994, controlled assessment expanded..... So please stop removing the content i'm adding, and replacing it with a "nothing changes".
  • The GCSE in not norm-referenced, so any comparison with similar awards will only be valid for the year the data was compared, in this case the comparisons were made in: 1988 and 1994.
  • There are approximately 800,000 pupils in each GCSE cohort, not 6 million, please stop replacing the count of exam scripts with the word candidates.
  • Also please stop deleting the "See also" sections, that link to other variants of the qualification. (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course there was "Pre-1988". You can't talk about the introduction of the GCSE without considering the "Common Exam at 16+". Have a read of for some background.
Of course the GCSE is not norm-referenced. The grade boundaries are determined by a meeting of examiners and subject specialists where they agree that scripts on either side of the grade boundary are representative of the work of candidates at that grade level in previous years. It is precisely for that reason that comparisons are valid across different years or different cohorts (as in the case of tiered exams).
Since each exam may have multiple scripts, it is just as incorrect to label the 6 million as "exam scripts". The number you are looking at is actually the count of entries.
Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There were many, many years pre 1988, around 13.5 billion, but there weren't any GCSEs awarded prior to June 1988, It was all O-levels, CSE's, RSA stage II's, C&G, Pitman certificates,.....;)
On the Norm referencing there's a current, well a month old Guardian article with Edexcel, and it appears that GCSE's are now partially norm-referenced. Since 2012 they are only permitted to vary the percentage obtaining any particular grade by less than 1%, from the previous year.
I'm happy with either entries or exam scripts, entries is shorter, just not: awards, pupils, students, children, candidates.... (will make the change)
Oh, found User:Supervisor635 had also stripped the dates them the Scottish and Irish education pages, via IP:
Thanks for spotting / correcting those typos. (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed there were no GCSEs awarded prior to 1988 - although we did a considerable amount of testing on trial syllabuses prior to the first exams. The "Common Exam at 16+" was examined in the years before 1988, although the award was validated by the CSE and O level boards jointly and awarded separately by each as appropriate. It was the existence of that collaborative project that enabled the GCSE to be introduced so rapidly, making use of the structures already set up between the boards. The only GCSE that I am aware of that was completely criterion referenced was the first MEG Computer Studies exam, where each exam paper was divided into sections directly related to each grade. A candidate had to reach a "hurdle" to pass a section, and the highest section passed was the grade achieved for that paper. The grades for each component were then amalgamated to produce the overall grade awarded. It didn't prove popular and reverted to a more traditional scheme of assessment after a few years. The traditional scheme was, as you say, essentially norm referenced (if I remember correctly, at the B/C, D/E and G/U boundaries originally), but a variation of more than a few percent in the proportion of any grade from the previous year triggered a review that had to be sufficiently rigorous to stand scrutiny from SEAC, and it quite often resulted in a "cap" on variation. Because the judgement was delegated to a relatively small group, albeit highly experienced, there was always the possibility of standards drift. For those reasons, the GCSE could never be said to be completely criterion referenced.
Thanks for keeping your eyes on the date-stripping vandalism. It's a regular occurrence with socks or IPs operated by the same person: always a minor change along with mass removal of dates and an innocuous edit summary. We just have to keep reverting it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity do you know how candidates for the Common Exam trials were selected? I ask as I've had a look at the stat's and the percentage obtaining the O-Level grades are well below those awarded via a straight O-Level (by the same GCE board in the same year), and as I understand it the exams were limited to the subset of the syllabus that was common to both the O-level and CSE. Was it the case that borderline pupils were volunteered ?
Oh I stumbled across the original MEG Computer Studies syllabus and the sample paper a few weeks back, that takes me back. (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).