User talk:Kierant/Archive3

Barnstar!

No worries Kieran - great edits and love reading them. You get a bit wordy at times ha ha but yeah - great inputs. Ive been editing 1 article constantly as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbat_%28band%29 - it almost feels like its "yours" Doesnt it? Very addictive but i absolutley love Wiki! All the best. Cameron Ukbn2 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi i

I've been slowly working on this page over time, and it's reached the point where I think it meets the criteria of a Good Article, although with two copyrighted fair use images and only 13k of content, it's well short of being FA. The biggest trouble with expanding the article is that the car was only released 12 months ago, so I'm still waiting on a lot of info to become available (e.g. production/sales figures).

I didn't want to throw it open to the whole motley AutoProject community, some of whom may be compelled to "improve" the article by replacing metric with imperial measurements, adding badly laid out galleries of the rear of the car, reams of technical information in tabular or bulleted format, and expounding at length on the North American market perspective. Instead, I thought I'd just test the water by canvassing the opinions of some random auto editors who don't seem obsessed with making WP a Buyers' Guide.

Anyway, you think it's worth taking Mitsubishi i through the WP:GA nomination process?

This question has been copy/pasted to User talk:Kierant, User talk:Interiot, User talk:SteveBaker and User talk:BrendelSignature. --DeLarge 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why arent you correcting this??

User:Nareklm is using the same site for "source" , yet he purposely removed my same source (same site armenainhighland.com images) with "no source" so you can remove it. Please check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tigranmetscoin.jpg ,this is the same site armenainhighland.com source. Yet he removed my images from the "same site" "same source" Ararat_arev

The source I also had put in "File History" please check at the bottom of the images

Here are my images I uploaded from same site as Nareklm uploaded Tigranmetscoin.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nkar3.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurrian-AncientArmenian.jpg 75.4.211.151 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I suspect you're talking to the wrong person. I have no idea who you or this other user are, nor what articles you're talking about. Good luck finding the person you wanted. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. 1) it's from a blocked user (User:Ararat arev), and 2) They seemed to have spammed the message to everyone else who received DeLarge's message about the Mitsubishi i, which is completely unrelated. Feel free to ignore if you're not interested. --Interiot 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Okay, thanks for letting me know. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New England Quarter article

Hi Kieran, Hope you are well. I have finished the first draft of the "New England Quarter" article as referred to on the Brighton and Hove project page. With your in-depth knowledge of Brighton, could you take a look and let me know of/correct any inaccuracies. Also, have I used the correct method to cite websites? (I'm still very much a beginner on Wikipedia's citation policies!) Also, if you can think of any other appropriate categories or interwiki links, please go ahead; I had to submit it in a bit of a rush at lunchtime. Cheers, Matt. Hassocks5489 15:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matt, thanks, and likewise! Wow, that's a very comprehensive article, well done. A quick read has brought a few minor points to mind, but I'm on GNER WiFi at the moment which is a bit of a rip off so I'll not be doing any serious contributing for a day or two. One thing that I suspect won't last long is the claim that the car park was "very rarely" full. The word "very" tends to be a red rag to a bull around Wikipedia ;-) – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Marine Gate

Hi Kieran, Before I go adding a pic I took the other week, is it reasonable to state that the Marine Gate flats are within the area generally considered as Kemptown? I am inclined to think that they are, but it is a bit marginal, I suppose... Cheers, Hassocks5489 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, I suspect they are actually in "Black Rock" or even (unpopularly with the residents) "East Brighton". I have a little book about Brighton's experience of Luftwaffe bombings and I think I recall that book talking about the flats – which took several hits – as being at or above Black Rock. I'll look next time I'm in the same county as my Brighton books! In the meantime, I don't think anybody would object to the flats being described on the Kemptown page, or perhaps even the Kemp Town one, on the basis that the latter is the eastern extremity of the former, so practically adjacent to Marine Gate. But I think we should stop short of stating they're in either, and instead say that they're a short way along the coast. – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of WP:BAH - your opinion, please.

I have had the idea of expanding and renaming WikiProject Brighton to become WikiProject Sussex - this would not exclude people with a particular interest in, say, Chichester, Arundel, Worthing, Midhurst, Pulborough, Billingshurst, Horsham, Crawley, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath, Lewes, Eastbourne, Hastings, Rye, Winchelsea, etc. - all places worthy of a WikiProject - and I'm not sure that having WP:BAH as a sub-project of WP:Sussex would work. I feel that we are being too exclusive - we could attract new members this way. What do you think? - Vox Humana 8' 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, and I'd certainly be willing to contribute to any needed work on the towns and villages of the county — indeed, I've already done so with some of them. But changes at project level feel to me a little bit like a desire to cajole editors with an interest in Brighton into working on articles they weren't naturally drawn to, which can often lead to well-intentioned (but unwelcome) snippets of "original research" creeping in. I say this because Brighton is such a "bubble", or microcosm, with not much relation to the "natural" towns of Sussex, and I suspect that many of the Brighton editors won't have much knowledge or interest outside of the boundaries of the town. Not meaning any disrespect to them; it's just that editors have a field of interest.

I don't, however, want to poo-poo the idea before it's given breath! Let's discuss it on the project page and maybe take a straw poll to see what proportion of editors are interested? – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English)

Hi Kieran,

User:Kevin Murray has called the page a "rejected proposal". I think he's wrong, but the page might need to be more than just examples. I've started a draft at User:Joeldl/Varieties of English Draft. Let me know what you think. Joeldl 14:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi Kierant/Archive3, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Church of St. Peter, Brighton

Hi Kieran; I have replied at my talk page to yours. Hassocks5489 11:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot

Hi, I've posted the info you requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot (British army officer). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know? suggestion

Hi Kieran; after coming across your new Aid Convoy article when looking for something else, I nominated a fact for the "Did You Know?" section on the front page. Could you check the wording I have used to make sure it makes sense in the context of the article - see here for my "hook". Hassocks5489 12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I love it — nice to be able to use an encyclopædia to tell stories, by means of the "DYK?". Thanks for spotting it. – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which....

On June 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aid Convoy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep it up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stockaree

Yes, this is true. Elderly residents of Stockbridge in Edinburgh really do call it Stockaree. I know this because I have been a resident of Stockbridge for some 17 years (although I am not elderly). Sadly, many of the elderly residents of "Stockaree" have popped off now. Stockbridge has a younger, fast-changing population. So the nick-name may soon be lost. That's life! Kind regardsAvril.rennie 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avril. Never heard it, so I wondered if it was one of those things which appeared out of the internet ether — nice to know it's not, and add it to my vocab! ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Lovely (micronation)

what you playing at? most of the stuff i and others have put is legit and you've deleted it, are you even a memeber of the proboard site? do you know who anyone is? before you delete summat check the facts out, and stop reverting all the edits, lovely has changed and this needs putting out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pompey Gaz (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 June 2007

Hello Gaz. It's a shame you don't like the present article, but it's verifiable information, which is what Wikipedia insists upon. Please consult WP:ATT. Nobody is allowed to just add their own opinions or original research, and you certainly can't go around calling people wankers and nazis, as you have done. (Please also consult WP:CIVIL.) If you want to improve the article, please add verifiable information and cite reliable sources which pass Wikipedia's tests for verifiability and reliability. Then I'll be delighted to read the new information and not revert it! Incidentally, the article is of course about Lovely, the micronation. If you'd actually like to write about the things which are discussed on your "proboard" discussion forum, why not consider writing an article about that? I'm not at all sure it would survive Wikipedia's notability tests (so it would probably get nominated for deletion) but there's no harm in trying. – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

cheers keiran but really is it worth putting anything if its just gunna get deleted or reverted by you? i don't see how writing about the present lovely is my opinion, its whats happening to lovely, if you wanna go by the "official" lovely then you best delete the article because the idea/the people/the humor its all dead

I (hope I) see what you're saying, but as I said above, you need to make things verifiable. The test on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I know that sounds crazy on first hearing, but it's there to stop all kinds of political edit-warring, soapboxing, conspiracy theories and all the rest of the stuff people would love an extra place to publish. All I'm doing here is keep the encyclopædia encyclopædic. If you can provide references from the mainstream media or academic papers, for example, which indicate the veracity of these things – such as something saying that "the idea, people, and humour are all dead" – then by all means add that. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it, all i see is if it might offend someone it gets gone. but if you look at the LS boards and type tagg its all there. Anyhow am sorry for being a breast about this and for the work i've given you just alot of people are miffed at how this works. take it easy, Gaz

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sussex

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sussex Please have a look at and join the above! --Vox Humana 8' 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillman Avenger Pop Culture

I see you have deleted the entire Popular Culture section of Hillman Avenger. There is a mention of WikiProjectAutomobiles but I have to confess to not being able to find it (not to say it's not there, I just don't know how to find it).

I wonder if there is some way we could comply with the rules and keep at least some of the "popular culture" items in there, maybe under another heading. It seems a pity to lose this information forever.

Regards, Colin99 08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin :)

Sorry about the project not making things easy to find. There's a lot of activity in its discussion group, which means things often end up in the "archives"!

There are two main ways to retain popular culture sections — the first is by including only things which were important to the car (as opposed to things in which the car was important to the film, if you see what I mean). An example is "The Italian Job" which was of course valuable to the Mini.

The second is to create a new article called something like this one: Citroën DS in popular culture. The advantage in having a separate article is that the main article is kept totally referenced and factual, and the separate article is independantly subject to Wikipedia's "notability" criteria, and can be tested for its usefulness by the community without the main car article being dragged into any such debates. I'm away from home just now, but if you'd like a hand putting such an article together I'd be happy to help in a couple of weeks when I'm back. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the additional LDV comments???

If something is in the public domain it's not copyvio - discussion of business. All the material is in the public domain. Why did you undo the comments?? Do you work for LDV, their agency or GAZ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.199.59 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I believed that the comments added into the LDV article went into excessive magazine-style discussion of the business arrangements; a very much shorter summary would be more appropriate here. Certainly, the comments included speculation which is unencyclopædic. Please consult WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. If you wrote the material yourself, thanks for the contribution — but perhaps you could copyedit it somewhat and add Wikilinks into it, and remove the speculation? Several paragraphs in such style, and without any links always smack of copy-and-pasting. But the fact that it reads like journalistic copy isn't in itself the reason I deleted it, as I hope I've explained. Incidentally, if it's indeed "material in the public domain" (even if it's specifically not copyright) then it's perhaps better added to the article as a reference, rather than copied in verbatim. And no, I don't work for any related company. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)