User talk:Northumbrian/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2010

Delivered April 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 09:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


Sorry about the edit conflict; thanks for resolving it. BTW, if you feel like teaching a class of Business and Professional Writing this summer, I have one for you. All of a sudden B&P in the summer doesn't seem so attractive anymore, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem mate, that's what I get for having an article open for editing for half an hour at a time during a painstaking copyedit. After facepalming myself upon receiving the edit conflict notice, I sighed and resigned myself to merging the edits; was so happy to see it was a simple, clean deletion of a section of questionable value which I completely agreed with. Thanks also for the offer to teach your class for you, but as you say, with summer approaching, the appeal really isn't there. :o) Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Doonhamer → Northumbrian

I usurped the username Northumbrian on 4 May 2009. Northumbrian (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Football season dates

Hello. Wish there was something written down, though in practice I suspect it wouldn't make much difference... The theoretical ideal, as recently mentioned in this thread, is that we follow reliable sources, e.g. BBC/Football League/Premier League, and change when they do. But it tends to work on a club-by-club basis, depending on how resistant each club's regular editors are to change. It might be worth asking at the project talk page what the conventions are and if they're written down anywhere; as an "outsider", you might get a helpful answer... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hull City

The article makes it quite clear Dowie has left, but perhaps a footnote should be added to say that Brown is technically still manager but is on gardening leave? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2010

Delivered May 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 07:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

KC Stadium

Hi, many thanks for the updates to the references. I have just added the season average attendance while I was there, surprising it has dropped with several new record attendances during the season. Keith D (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. That is odd about the attendance drop (no doubt it'll drop much more next season). Northumbrian (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting the hang?

I see youve started using the HG. How's it going? Tommy2010 02:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, yeah, thanks for the tip! Going okay so far, don't know enough about it yet except to keep hitting the Queue button and reverting the obvious stuff. Must be doing something right as I've had my user and talk pages vandalized a couple of times already tonight. :o) Northumbrian (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Tip: use space for the next revision and press "q" to revert and warn. You'll be a speed demon har har Tommy2010 02:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hah, that's why I'm too late for half the reverts I try. Got it, thanks! Northumbrian (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Please stop plagiarizing my user page! Likeuridder —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Heh. Northumbrian (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Page blanked by author

Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because quite often the author has blanked his own page, as with Mohamed H. Hamza just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate (in this case he'd been told it was a copyvio) and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Northumbrian (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi, why do you keep reverting the changes to the page that is about me? I am trying to make people aware of Transgender people and all of the issues we face. I find it reprehensible that I am being censored on what I thought was a website for free speech. I understand that you might not be comfortable with my lifestyle, but that is not a legitimate reason to censor me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvcomedy (talkcontribs) 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of free speech; it's a matter of Verifiability. I am reverting your edits not because I disagree with your lifestyle. I am reverting them because you are not following several very important Wikipedia guidelines:
While Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that does not mean that anyone can write whatever they want. That's why those guidelines are in place. If you want to be a positive contributor to the project, please understand that. Thank you. Northumbrian (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tween Turd

Hi Northumbrian. There is an exchange of opinions at User talk:Favonian#Tween Turd. As far as I can tell, the "source" is bogus. Favonian (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User page protection

Hi, just to let you know I have semi-protected your user page due to the spate of IP vandalism. If you want it unprotecting then let me know and I will unprotect it. Keith D (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Keith. I'm happy to leave it in place for now. Northumbrian (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on policy

There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of WP:WAX the final entry on legitimate usage, WP:BIAS and the current reading of WP:NPOV. I hopefully summarized my case effectively here. Alatari (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. I've advanced my opinion at the discussion. Northumbrian (talk)

You read my mind and summarized my question about the wording in the NPOV article and how it could be construed to adapt cross article. Thanks. Alatari (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see you were also confused by the location of the moved discussion. I've not contributed since then for that reason; I'm glad you asked Beeblebrox for clarification. Northumbrian (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I see now that there was a continuation of the discussion under the closed discussion at the village pump. So where exactly is the main discussion taking place then? Northumbrian (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion on the Talk:NPOV page around rewording WP:ASF which has the focus of the debate and at Talk:Criticism of Judaism. I was looking at the wider issue of whether wikipedia should broaden NPOV across pages because of my reading of the Criticism of Wikipedia (WP:BIAS) article and the wording from the NPOV article, but many authors are primarily focused on the Criticism X pages. One faction wants to delete the Criticism of Judaism by any means necessary even if it means removal of all Criticism X articles because they are WP:COATRACK articles. The other side defends the articles as a means of moving large sections to smaller articles with WP:Summary style and reducing article size. But the Criticism of Judaism article is itself a Summary style article which makes it a second level recursive content fork? 1)If WP:NPOV is focused only on internal article workings and POV's are getting outsourced to other articles with WP:Summary then should NPOV lead paragraph be modified to cover diaspora of related articles? POV forking. 2)My original point was to counter WP:BIAS we have NPOV worded to encourage similar article naming and creation to balance coverage over sections of a field. i.e. all religion articles are required to have a criticism X article.

Issue 1 is easily fixed by a simple three words added in the NPOV leadin. Watch and see if I get extreme resistance to this. IMO, POV fork is such an important bias activity on wikipedia it is deserving of it's own full article at least as an article about wikipedia politics, history or bias. Issue 2 means a different look at WP:WAX, project style guidlines and more thought. Alatari (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2010

Delivered June 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hull updates

Hi, thanks for your messages. I thought you could beef up the headline section with a few more taster features a little as many who don't know Hull may not bother to scroll down to read more about WHM, the student population, economic regeneration etc.

I am glad you have kept the new Larkin 25 section and hope this will remain. I will update this now and then and keep to this section for now. WH —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilberforceHope (talkcontribs) 21:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great, thanks. Other editors might see the Larkin 25 section as promotional and want to remove it as such. It doesn't strike me as blatantly promotional, but if that happens, you can always bring the issue to the article talk page so some sort of consensus can be reached. Northumbrian (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SunTrust Center

Hello! Thanks so much for the great pic you uploaded to the SunTrust Center page! I also agree with the edits that you've made so thank you for making it a great page. To answer your question, I have not thought about creating other pages for Orlando skyscrapers; but I like the idea. I think the SunTrust page is a great start. What other Orlando towers do you think could use a Wikipedia entry? Just an FYI, I've no personal interest in the tourist section of Orlando and feel that part of town already receives enough attention. However, there are some exceptions; i.e., the Peabody expansion tower and the new Waldorf Astoria Orlando. Anyway, let me know your thoughts and thanks again! Donniewan75 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Kingston upon Hull

Do you fancy taking a look at these changes and seeing what can be kept and what can be cut as the new bits are unreferenced and are a bit on the peacock side. Keith D (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can do, I'll take a look at them this afternoon. From first glance, we should at least be able to get rid of the peacock terms. Northumbrian (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Keith D (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we need to keep an eye on this as there are significant changes going on. I have picked up some of them but needs more eyes on it. Keith D (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Agreed. I appreciate the good faith effort, but seems there's a lot of clean-up in the wake of it. Not sure how to broach improvement efforts like being diligent with sources and learning to use citation templates for consistency with existing material. Any thoughts?

It also looks like other Hull-related articles are starting to be affected too.

It doesn't look like Harkey's been that active lately (not since April); maybe we could tap him? Northumbrian (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of clean-up on the Hull article to do, I think the several lists of shops need to be trimmed out as seems to be getting too much. I have modified most of the references - especially as they keep using ambiguous date formats but probably have not picked up on the dabs that are required. It is good to get some updates to the article as they appear to have access to some recent developments. I was thinking of prodding them about edit summaries as a start as they have not used any as yet.
I was hoping Harkey would be back but has not done much since Christmas when introducing the monthly improvement drive! By the way who are you referring to with the tap? If it is Harkey then you have the sex wrong as she is female. Keith D (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on Harkey; you've saved me an awkward moment. I've gone by that nickname myself in the past, so "male" was on the brain. Anyway, yes, it was she I was thinking of. Not sure who else takes a regular interest in the article beyond us three, to be honest.
I've mentioned the edit summary on the user talk page once already; perhaps another prod along those lines, and a suggestion to use the citation templates? Meanwhile, I can try to devote some time to the article this weekend. I skimmed through yesterday's edit history; in addition to the points you mention, I'm not a big fan of terms like "recently" and "over the last decade", as those can age as time goes on. Northumbrian (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Keith D (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Scotland Referendum Bill tag

Is there a specific development this update tag refers to? A quick google search reveals nothing in the immediate news.... MickMacNee (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mick, nothing specific; I just noticed that the first sentence in the second paragraph of the section tagged starts "The text of the Bill is due to be published on 25 January 2010..." which is almost five months ago. I apologise if the tagging and the lack of comment on the talk page seems lazy; I was just surfing through and thought that that discrepancy might jump out at someone watching the article after that section was tagged. It might be just a matter of changing "is due to be published" to "was published". Northumbrian (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and updated the article talk page, as I should have done last night. Northumbrian (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit clearer then cheers. I've not been keeping up with developments so I thought I might have missed something. That's the trouble with writing about future events I guess. MickMacNee (talk)
I got into it and it's turned into a major reorganisation as usual. Have a re-read if you want and see if it makes sense now. It's giving me a real headache, I hate 'History' sections but it's seemingly impossible not to have them. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Great work Mick, reads easily and is well-referenced; made a few minor copyedits but otherwise seems just fine. Thanks! I know it can be a thankless task at times when it seems you're the only one who cares about an article's quality. Cheers, Northumbrian (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I've replied to your message on my talkpage for continuity. Richard Harvey (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Just a heads up to let you now I have changed all the suspected Socks to confirmed ones, See:- Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WilberforceHope. At the present time he appears to have gone quiet. If you note anymore disruptive editing from the socks or logins let me know and I will moot the question about blocking all the socks in the category and restrict him to using the initial login of WilberforceHope! Richard Harvey (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mid-2009 government population estimate

Hi Northumbrian. The Official yearly statistics for estimated population figures has just been released. I'm not sure how to edit the info box on the right hand side of the page (and don't want to mess up!) so I can provide a link. The Kingston-Upon-Hull Unitary Authority area population estimste stands at 262,400 - a 1.3% increase on the 2008 figure. This is the link for reference:

Radiator4612 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It looks like the infobox template on the Hull page that generates the infobox uses a couple of subsidiary templates for the population statistics:
The documentation at the latter states: This is a group of templates that provide an easy method to link to population statistics for English districts. The templates are updated from time to time as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) releases new data, thus it should not be necessary to manually update the articles or their references.
So it looks like we shouldn't have to do anything; in the next few weeks, someone should update both of those and the correct figures and year should appear in the Hull article. From their update histories, it looks like editor Keith Edkins last updated them both for the 2008 figures; he might be a good person to contact about updating it again for the 2009 numbers if we don't see them updated in a few weeks. Northumbrian (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hull City official website

Hi, Just to let you know, the official website is notorious for being inaccurate and out of date. J-VoH and Boateng have left Hull City following the expiry of their contracts yesterday, per [1]. I'm also not sure whether Steve Parkin has actually left the coaching staff, as there has been no report of this despite him no longer appearing on the "Who's who" page on the OWS. Cheers, BEVE (talk)  15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beve, thanks. I did see on Sky Sports that JVoH and Boateng were no longer listed, . And I realize the OWS can lag. Still, that's the only source given for that section, so I think that's what we should match until it is updated (remember that "verifiability" over "truth" thing), unless we want to also include Sky or the Beeb as second sources. Stuck at work at the moment and can't give that the attention it needs. I'm happy with removing them if we can add a ref next to the OWS ref. What do you think? Northumbrian (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Northumbrian. You have new messages at Beve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2010

Delivered July 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 11:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


  1. Your correction to Ukraine is erroneous. The Ukrainian anthem has been adopted by the Ukrainian parliament in 2003. A link to the law has been provided. ([2])
    Your source was provided in the edit summary, not in the article, and not readily seen. I would advise you learn how to properly cite your sources before editing articles. At any rate, after I did see your reference and followed the link, I agree that that source backs up your edit.
  2. You were not careful when reviewing the article.
    I was careful enough to notice the conflict you were introducing.
  3. First, it appears that you don't understand Ukrainian language and therefore you are not capable to read the primary source (the Law of Ukraine, in this case) to judge the validity of a correction.
    I have a working knowledge of Russian, similar enough to Ukrainian that I do, indeed, know the difference between "i" and "ni". Please don't presume what others do and do not know.
  4. Second, you were not careful to notice that the same user (User:A.h._king) edited both articles, Ukraine and Ukrainian national anthem, thus, you cannot argue about the validity of information in one article based on the other (nor to mention that Wikipedia, by itself, is not a primary source). Another user has already fixed Ukrainian national anthem.
    Point granted.
  5. If you are familiar with "assume good faith" policy, then first of all, follow it.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vomas (talkcontribs) 15:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    I did not assume bad faith with your edit; it was clearly good faith. It was, however, improperly sourced and appeared to introduce conflicting information, I revert many such good faith edits, and there is nothing wrong with doing so. Again, please do not presume what others do and do not know. Northumbrian (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm seeking advice, I appear to have reverted an edit to Alexander the Great at the same time as you accepted it. I didn't like the wording, implication or placement but I'm well aware of my comparative lack of experience. Have I reverted unwisely? JohnHarris (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi John,
No, not at all. I accepted the pending change on Alexander in my role as a reviewer. As a reviewer, I monitor changes to pages that have been protected to allow anonymous users (those without accounts that only show up as IP addresses) to submit changes to articles. It's a way to prevent vandalism while still allowing anonymous users to contribute.
Anyway, as a reviewer, I'm supposed to accept any good faith anonymous edits that aren't blatant vandalism or violations of the Living Person Biography guidelines. Since the edit to Alexander was neither, I accepted the edit. After that, my role is done, and other editors such as yourself can edit as you see fit. In this case, I think you're perfectly right: while a good faith effort, the addition was unsourced (the real reason I didn't like it), in addition to its awkward phrasing and implecations. So you're perfectly within your right to undo the edit. Cheers, Northumbrian (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I see on your talk page that you're also a reviewer (sorry, didn't know that when I wrote the above, wouldn't have sounded so condescending to you if I had. :o) ). There's a discussion going on about the pending changes trial, one of the topics being what to accept and what to revert. I went there recently for some guidance and perspective, as it's a difficult choice sometimes. Northumbrian (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've now read the discussion page and it's given me a better perspective. The Reviewer option is a worthwhile experiment, it's another tool. Some pages just get fought over. The few who watchlist and guard a page like that are as likely to be as partisan as the ones trying to force a POV or wreck the page. Widening the protection to Reviewers spreads the workload and reinforces attention to Wikipedia standards. I've seen watchlist guardians with their backs to the bridge looking distinctly outnumbered before now. They tend to sound shrill and bossy after a while. If Reviewers in general have their attention drawn in that direction it'll be all to the good. I'm glad I asked what you thought, what you replied has helped me mull it over. JohnHarris (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)