User talk:Rwendland

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


Algol 68[edit]

Fantastic quote Dennis Ritchie on Algol68. usenet quote. What prompted is discovery/realisation?

NevilleDNZ 00:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been around a while :-) I was an avid Usenet reader at the time, and as I'd worked on Algol 68 and C compilers I naturally took great interest in that article at the time. I had thought A68 had influenced C more, until Dennis posted that article. C struct is A68 struct pretty much, so it was always clear the C type system was heavily influenced by A68. When a Quotes section was added, it seemed the obvious quote to me - the C type system is probably A68's most major lasting direct legacy.

Dennis mentions A68 in a fair few posts: [1].

-- Rwendland 08:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also went the Algol68 to C path. I was an easy transistion. C was a bit closer to the actual machine, hence my knowledge of Fortran helped too. Later Ansi-C typechecking pushed C closer to Algol68.

Somewhere I held the suggestion that Algol68 failed to enter the US because IBM was pushing PL/I. Do you know of any quotes on this theme?

NevilleDNZ 14:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think lack of early good compilers, especially in the USA, contributed a lot to failure. And I suspect PL/I had a lot to do with that in the USA. Also many people thought it difficult to implement, and inefficient; the early Algol 68R compiler which ran in 108KB (code + data space) producing efficient code disproved that, but the message didn't get around.

Another dmr quote is pertinent [2]:

A68C also compiled and ran on the PDP11! ... Steve Bourne wrote interfaces to all the Unix system calls, and recoded enough of the standard utilities of the time to demonstrate that it was comparable to the C of the time in object size and running speed. However, he couldn't find enough fans locally to make it worth while to continue work on it.


-- Rwendland 10:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was a long time ago, but I did quite a bit of number crunching in Algol68. IF I recall correctly Algol68Cs performance (even via zcode) was fine. NAG was even publish in Algol68. (I'd love to have a copy of algol68 NAG now!) NevilleDNZ 00:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Heya Rwendland,

I reverted the page on leukemia since I don't have a very good source for it. Sorry about that. Still, I am of the personal opinion that such claims are nonsense ;) I was taking a look at this page, I'm not sure that any of these sources are as credible as the one you mentioned, but from a physics standpoint the idea of such minimal electromagnetic fields having a non-trivial effect on cancer rates seems absurd. Thanks for the correction though, just food for thought.

Power Lines and Cancer

--Meekohi 15:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Magnox Reactors[edit]

Might be worth pointing out that, despite the variety, there are some rather surprising similarities. eg Dungeness (steel PV) and Oldbury (concrete PV) have essentially identical core designs, I think. Linuxlad 5 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Don't think Dungeness and Oldbury cores are that similar, take a look at Table 3 in which shows every site operating in 2000 had a different core height, operating pressure and number of channels except the identical Calder/Chapel. Dungeness in fact is an odd-man-out with 7 fuel elements per channel rather than the usual 8. - Rwendland 5 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

Fair point - I'll chase on these. (my dim recollection is that the loss of the 8th element at DNA was late on, and after the key elements, fuel design, core neutronics were done).

I'll update the annotation on the diagrams as you suggested and upload the new versions accordingly Emoscopes 13:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

AGR / Magnox Images[edit]

I have made the changes that you suggested for the AGR and Magnox reactor diagrams. Emoscopes 03:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Telecommunications Research Establishment[edit]

Please see Talk:Telecommunications Research Establishment -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yongbyon or Nyongbyon[edit]

I've reverted your edit in the article on the Yongbyon nuclear reactors. IAEA documents actually use the following three spellings: Nyongbyon, "Nyonbyong" and "Nyongbyong". Both "Nyongbyong" and "Nyonbyong" are just wrong, and I don't understand how anybody can take the IAEA serious if they can't even spell correctly the place they are supposedly so concerned about. I've actually written to them several months ago, but never received a reply. — Babelfisch 05:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

United Nations Atomic Energy Commission[edit]

Thanks for correcting my initial attempt; it's not an area I know much about, so I got my information from various Web sources (which said that the Soviet Union had vetoed the proposal, so I just parotted it). I have changed the external link back, though, as the date was part of the title of the Web page (and I'm fairly sure that the comma in the date doesn't do anything; the formatting puts in or leaves out a comma depending on the reader's preference, regardless of what's in the code). --Phronima 21:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Kim Jong Il[edit]

there is now a poll at Talk:Kim Jong-il on "leader"/"ruler" for the Kim Jong Il article. maybe this will finally put the silly, protracted debate to rest. thanks in advance for taking the time. whatever your view, i think the article just needs a bit more attention of outside parties.Appleby 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq[edit]

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran Air Flight 655[edit]

From your edit summary regarding the George H. W. Bush quote I understood that you checked the actual Newsweek issue, is this correct? - Dammit 12:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this at Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655#Source_request. I haven't checked the source, just stated on Talk that was given as the source eleswehere and suggested someone check it. I didn't reinsert it, and presumed the editor who later did had checked. Rwendland 14:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Six-party talks page[edit]

Hi Rwedland, I see you've been an active member on the six-party talks, but I've given it a whole revamp, added tons of information including participants, objectives achieved, purposes of the six-party talks, how and why it came about, etc. etc. Please have a look and let me know what you think! Jsw663 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

EPR - Air crash[edit]


Page 48 of this document may give the answer to your request :


Euston Manifesto[edit]

Hello, Rwendland! In re: my change to your change: you're welcome. Once again it's nice to have another civilised and thoughtful interaction with a fellow Wikipedian.

Jon Snow edits[edit]

Rwendland - Haaretz is a respected Israeli broadsheet newspaper not a 'gossipy source' AND I have linked to the interview in which Jon Snow made the remark. Explain your edits....Blanking vandalism? Disillusioned-

Just to notify you that the user above has continued to insert the same WP:BIO-violating section despite not even attempting to answer any of the 5 points given for its removal on the talk page. I can't think that this is the proper way to go about things. -W guice 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It just doesn't stop, does it? Ah, well. Don't become disheartened, i've only browsed over yr edits but there's very ample very useful stuff there, matey. Anyway, as to the matter in question i've done my best to add some more pertinenet contribution to discussion on the talk page. word -W guice 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Everyones Internet[edit]

Hi, I think you're running a spelling checker on Everyones Internet "sp (2): Everyones→Everyone's". "Everyone's" is correct English, but unfortunately their trademark is "Everyones Internet" with the bad spelling. Could you disable the spell check for this. Thanks. Rwendland 23:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that, Rwendland. I've added it to my exception list. Cheers, CmdrObot 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese atomic program[edit]

I see your recent addition to this site. Some contend that the Japanese had no need to go to the trouble and expense of developing nuclear weapons post-WW2 because the US was probably willing to supply Japan (to the consternation of the Aussies) on the same terms as to other allies, esp in the NATO area, including former enemies, Germany and Italy. See [3] page 2. The sort of weapons Japan might think they had a need for might well be those related to SAM defences, anti-submarine weapons (NDBs) given Japanese geographical proximity to exits from the USSR's Siberian naval bases to the Pacific Ocean. Brian.Burnell 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PW Botha[edit]

Do you have a reference for how long Botha remained Minister of Defence? The Magnus Malan page says Botha appointed him to that role in October 1980. Zaian 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


The thing is that (talk · contribs) also makes a lot of very good edits. Even when a school IP is used for only vandalism (so far), the current practice is against blocking them for more than short periods. We don't like to drive away everyone at that school just because of a few vandals. Especially since number-changing like that is relatively common, and rarely goes unnoticed, the potential harm from blocking the University is considered greater than what the vandals that use it can do. If they go on a vandal spree, then certainly a short block to interrupt the spree is in order. Otherwise, we just revert... — Saxifrage 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal or clumsy editor?[edit]

This is third day of seeing either vandalism or clumsy editing on carrier related articles from now 3 different similar IP addresses. The latest being User talk: Only one or two edits seem to be genuine, the rest remove the same images over and over. I have tried to follow this activity and summarize the activity with warnings on the successive tak pages, but have gotten no response from whoever is doing it, I saw you reverted one of the "botched" image jobs so thought I'd point out what I'm seeing as you may well be first see the next "session". If the person involved is moving to different computers, then the warnings may not be seen before he moves on. This is getting old to say the least. Cheers, HJ 11:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seems like he is not keen on images of UK carriers near larger US carriers! The image in the one I reverted is quite awkwardly placed, so I had some sympathty with its removal if it had been done correctly - I was being kind with my "botched inage removal" comment! Looking across all his changes it does seem it is akin to vandalism. Rwendland 12:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur...not sure if this is intentional or not? Without a reason or substitution, it's hard to tell, but 3 days in a row tend to make me agree with you on not liking the image for some reason. HJ 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hazel Blears[edit]

Hi. I just noiced your edit to Ian McCartney. I have been trying to do the same sort of thing on those titles - see also Charles Clarke and John Reid. I cannot edit Hazel Blears as I am not registred. Can you edit the following in there instead of the two current boxes? Thanks.

Done. Good to unspin this name confusion! Rwendland 17:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway edits[edit]

The best way to get an edit to a protected page is to use the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page. Sam Blacketer 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I should have realised that the editor you guys were trying to revert was the one who had filed the protection request. I hope it's all OK now, and if you want anything else out, please give me a yell. – riana_dzasta 11:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the whole section. Note I wasn't one of the editors involved in the edit war, just a watcher sometimes tidying the edges. I don't have the time & energy for these wars, and it is unclear to me what is best to do in the long run. The George Galloway article has been a battleground for ages - it is somewhat depressing. Rwendland 11:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point about BLP and the protection policy. I've brought it up on the talk (I basically just quoted what you said, as you put it pretty well!). Feel free to add any further input. – riana_dzasta 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

David Blair and Zimbabwe(3|4)[edit]

Cheers for reverting this guy's uncorrection of my correction to the sentence on the Galloway libel case.

Just for fun, do you think that this is Blair himself?

  • Blair is roughly 33 or 34 years old now
  • Blair lives in Zimbabwe
  • Zimbabwe33/Zimbabwe34's claim that they 'never questioned the authenticity of the documents' is not a million miles away from "First, Mr Galloway's lawyers did not challenge the authenticity of the documents.", a sentence which appears in one of Blair's own articles
  • this edit directly quotes the judge - since this quote is not apparently on the internet, it means that it's either in print, or this Zimbabwe33/34 person was, or was in contact with, someone in the courtroom that day.

The evidence is a bit circumstancial so I'm not yelling 'conflict of interest' yet, but I felt I had to share my suspicions with someone! --Aim Here 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for spotting my error on constituency & grid ref on Brentry (which I've now fixed), but putting the "coor title dms" back in means they overlay each other top right of the article & make it unreadable.— Rod talk 14:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good find on the W76 warhead source[edit]

Good find on the W76 warhead source. - Davandron | Talk 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You might also be interested in the "The Future of Britain’s WMD", Dan Plesch[4]. e.g. he points out the NAO reported that for warhead development and production, "Most of the development and production expenditure is incurred in the US" (page 15). I'm sure that should go in somewhere. Rwendland 03:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

NPT / 6-pty talks[edit]

Only the NPT's Article X:1 gives non-nuclear states (i.e. all except the P5) the right to pursue nuclear energy peacefully, in return for vowing to give up nuclear weapons. India tested weapons + used nuclear power for military (non-civilian) purposes in total violation of the NPT, but were never part of the treaty. North Korea was part of this treaty (due to pressure by the Soviets, see 1985), but subsequently pulled out (2003). Nobody 'gave' a state the right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy nor can states, under international law, award itself any right it wants to. It's just that some states choose to do so DESPITE international law (i.e. disregarding it), but there is no legitimate (i.e. legal) basis. Jsw663 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given a rather lengthy reply on the 6-pty talk page, which is in effect very similar to the courses taught at UK universities teaching Arms Control / Security / International Relations (including the one I teach). Also note the difference between a self-given right and a legal right. I'm not saying the DPRK CANNOT do something it wants to do (e.g. nuclear weapons test). I am saying it is merely not authorized to do so under INTERNATIONAL LAW. There's a difference there that you must appreciate! Naturally by your stance I'm assuming you think that the international law is completely useless and helpless to govern the actions of states, but note that I am not completely disagreeing with you. Rather, you are mistaken in the details, and if you don't believe me, invite you to read the textbooks that exist out there writing about this topic. Please don't just revert while discussing, unless you want both of us banned. Usually I'd just let a matter of opinion go, but this is not opinion - it's a fact. Jsw663 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

re Talk:2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel[edit]

Did you really mean to delete user:Impi's comments as well just now? David Underdown 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. sorry. Thanks for telling me. Don't really understand how I did that - must have edited in an old Firefox tab. Rwendland 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Just occasionally the edit conflict detection doesn't seem to work, I've had it happen to me once or twice. Thought I'd leave it up to you to restore the comments, jsut in case there was something I was missing. David Underdown 07:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway[edit]

Hi, as you have taken part in past discussions, please discuss your take on the disagreement at this page WP:ANI#George Galloway so we can move forwad with this thing at the Galloway art. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 01:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm off on a week's holiday today, so can't join in. Rwendland 09:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you get a chance, please take part here. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

US/Korea Framework[edit]

I tagged it because of the nuclear proliferation aspect, a tenuous link i must agree. I tagged it as part of a drive and went from the category root. Looking at it again i agree it is a tenuous, if non-existent, link to the military and does fall outside the project scope. Perhaps a nuclear project would do? I am sure one project must cover it! Feel free to revert. Woodym555 00:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed it for you. Thanks for alerting me! Woodym555 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

? Wikiproject Somerset[edit]

Hi, Have you seen the proposal to create a Somerset wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals ?— Rod talk 17:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Severn Barrage[edit]

Thanks for taking the debate up to FIG on the Severn Barrage. He dominates the debate to the point that factual information other then his own is excluded. Tidalenergy 03:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Stig[edit]

Sorry, but the HSE report mentioning Ben Collins being a high speed driving consultant is irrelevant to this article. It is your own research/interpretation to suggest there might be a link, and this is not the place for speculation. Top Gear is a car show primarily devoted to high speed cars - the fact they employ high speed driving consultants is not a surprise, and I don't doubt that some of them sometimes put the Stig costume on. This topic has been discussed on Talk:The Stig, please take it up there if you want to discuss reinstatement. Halsteadk 14:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Fairfield.jpg[edit]

Hello. On 18:12, 1 May 2008, Grarap uploaded a new image titled Image:Fairfield.jpg, which was redundant to Image:Fairfieldadsad.jpg. I went ahead and deleted Image:Fairfield.jpg because I did not think the overwritten file was actually being used in any articles. If any of the deleted content needs to be reproduced, let me know and I'll be glad to help. Thanks! Brianga (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it. Please reinsert the image as you see fit. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Thanks! Brianga (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnox & on-load refuelling[edit]

Isn't it also true that you haven't got much Xenon over-ride, so killing the power to refuel too quickly (or following a trip) can leave you with a reactor you can't bring back to criticality for many hours? Linuxlad (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's beyond my knowledge I'm sorry to say - I just have an amateur interest in Magnox. I was rather dubious about not on-load refuelling large Magnox reactors (it must take ages with all those channels), but when the former CEO of Nuclear Electric (and distinguished engineer) writes it, it seems worth reporting. Rwendland (talk)
Well I suppose if you're going do do a large-batch refuel, taking several days (which is what ChapelCross & Calder did I think?) then a few days for the Xe to decay is neither here nor there. I may ask a friend... Linuxlad (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If Calder Hall (1696 channels) could indeed be refueled in a few days, then the on-load refueling does not seem worthwhile. The much larger Oldbury only had 3308 channels (8 rather than 5/6 elements), so would only have taken about 3 times longer - not a big hit on availability given already low load factors in the first decade of use. Does sould like Robert Hawley might have made a very good point. Rwendland (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Ricin plot Daily Mirror.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Ricin plot Daily Mirror.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 09:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

National Grid (UK)[edit]

Hi. While there may be some debate over the utility of including such a list amongst electricity company articles, National Grid operates no transmission lines whatsoever at 11kV and 400V, and owns only a few km of lines at 132kV (the only ones I can think of are the Iron Acton – Oldbury-on-Severn interconnectors, which are very short). — BillC talk 22:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Message ref[edit]

Hi. Your recent contribution here [5] was noted, but BB wants me to point out that he is not a physicist, altho' he's sure physicists are nice people. The website you referred to has recently been updated with some newly declassified material on the topic you referred to. See design antecedents (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to BB, looks like I misremembered, though I thought I was taking that from another website. Would you like me to post a correction? Is the CNN "Retired nuclear engineer" or Telegraph "an engineer who worked on the British atomic weapons programme" accurate? Happy New Year to yourself and BB - it is lovely to hear he is still well and active. I note the recent changes; would BB prefer people to not copy small sections elesewhere for comment in the future? NB you can email me using this. Rwendland (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No prob about using extracts from B's website if it's useful. The CNN & DT description is fine. It's just that B didn't want to appear to be claiming an academic prowess he didn't earn. Apologies for the message here; my wiki-email facility isn't functioning. Will sort it later. B can be emailed directly via the email link here [6] and he'll be happy to answer any questions. Happy new year to you too. George.Hutchinson (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

MP Expenses[edit]

I disagree with your removal of the table showing Douglas Hogg's total expenses claimed in respect of his parliamentary duties, as it does put the disputed amounts into context, and have created an entry on the talk page where this can be discussed. I would greatly appreciate your input. — GrahamSmith (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

I am seeking information mediation on how to present the controversial Additional Costs Allowance within the context of Douglas Hogg's total expenses . — GrahamSmith (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to give a hand mediating at the Douglas Hogg article so if you can see the talk page there that would be great. Thanks! dottydotdot (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rwendland, can you have another look at the talk page & see what you think of GrahamSmith's sentence & either amend it or put a new one completely. Thank you! dottydotdot (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hiya. I've put a revised paragraph (including links and references) up on Douglas Hogg's talk page and would be grateful for your comments — GrahamSmith (talk)
And another suggested revision, hopefully one we can agree on — GrahamSmith (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ministerial Code[edit]

Hi, I'm afraid that I might have pipped you to the post, I just noticed that you were planning an article on the Ministerial Code and I've just done one... do improve on it, though, I'm sure it could do with some help! Sorry! ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 08:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Hogg[edit]

Can you have another look at the talk page & see what you think please? Cheers. dottydotdot (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am very grateful indeed to Rwendland, without whose willing participation the informal mediation at Douglas Hogg would not have succeeded. Thank you! — GrahamSmith (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Starhalf.png The Half Barnstar
Thank you for your calm & collected manner in dealing with the Douglas Hogg article. For that I award you the right half of the Half Barnstar, with the left going to GrahamSmith! dottydotdot (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Harriet Harman (titles)[edit]

You undid my edits to Harriet Harman's titles, which I had cited, without justification. Can you justify your revision? (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I did it in a hurry as a follow on to rv'ing the other major vandalism. But I thought on Mumsnet she was answering an abstract question rather than acknowledging that it was a style she had actually used - and a Mumsnet live webchat answer is hardly a considered answer to a "mainstream news organization" or typical kind of WP:Reliable sources. Rwendland (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If the question was abstract, she did not answer it as such. In any case, I simply figured that her own word was the strongest citation. She is referred to as Ms Harman by numerous, more reliable sources, including The Stationery Office. So, I will include a citation to that source as well. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

City of Bath Technical School[edit]

Hi, With your local knowledge could you look at City of Bath Technical School which I've been trying to help a new editor with. Also do you think a link to it should be put into Education in Bath, Somerset?— Rod talk 12:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rod. That is certainly a very impressive article giving an interesting and comprehensive history. It predates my time in Bath, so I cannot really add to or check the content easily, but will look over it. In the meantime I've added it to Education in Bath, Somerset in a new "Closed educational establishments" section - do you think that is a reasonable way to do it as it does not easily fit into the other current situation oriented sections? Rwendland (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks seems sensible - the article was a bit of a mess when first crated but survived AfD & I did a major rewrite for MOS but all the content comes from User:Francis E Williams and any help would be appreciated.— Rod talk 15:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Passing major edits off as minor ones[edit]

While you do have a point about the kidney-related care issue (and we can discuss that in talk), this edit here is not acceptable. You can't pass a content change off with the minor-tag. The Squicks (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. That was a mistake, I can't think why I ticked the box now, it was clearly possibly contentious. Rwendland (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hain[edit]

Please do NOT attempt to censor referenced material because it shows Hain in a bad way. His action was dispicable and WIDELY referred to as 'a sell out' The Telegraph is a reliable source and should stay. --Gibnews (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Google returns 82 hits for "gibraltar sell-out". The phrase is in wide use - See also WP:Duck. --Gibnews (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


I have reverted your update tag, with here as I had just previously added a conservative name to the article and as there are editors updating the article pretty regular I don't think the template is beneficial, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are removing my additions to 2005 Election page[edit]

You have twice removed a small addition I made to the 2005 Election page. On what grounds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePropertyLandlord (talkcontribs) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

David J. C. MacKay[edit]

Hi, I noticed you recently added David J. C. MacKay to the category "British Vegetarians". I don't suppose you have a source for his vegetarianism; it isn't mentioned in the article. I think MacKay is an important chap and his article is currently quite badly sourced. I recently added some sourced material, but there is quite a lot on there already that I couldn't find a source for. I'm not threatening to revert your edit or anything like that - I'm just trying to improve the article. Yaris678 (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yaris, I've added it to the main article with a source (which also handily covers the Erdős number). Tricky one, I'm usually very good on cites but I think veggie-ness barely warrants a mention in a main article, but the category is interesting but leaves nowhere to hang a cite. Tacking it onto the Erdős number is a handy solution! Rwendland (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That is a very happy solution! Nice work. Yaris678 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, I missed that one! To let you know, I've put the query about changing the name to the Baengnyeong incident talk page; it's here, if you want to check it. Happy typing... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)



i would like to use your photo of an abandoned car in morecambe bay as part of the artwork for an album i am doing. the album is not cc but will not make any money  ;-) would this be ok? what are your details so i can attribute it?

please email

thanks ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Friends of Israel Initiative[edit]

Since the article is new, I nominated it for DKY. Would you take a look at the proposed hook?AMuseo (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

British Energy[edit]

Can you check your email as I have sent a bit of background to my recent edits. --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

2nd Battle of Yeonpyeong[edit]

If you cannot read Korean, or you do not know how to access the Ministry of National Defense website or Republic of Korea Navy website, you should stay away from making your own casualty number on the page. The 6 KIA and 18 WIA is the official (and factual) number of casualty with the proof from the government of the Republic of Korea and every single news agency in Korea. You can search CNN or other foreign (meaning non-Korean) news agency to check for secondary proof.
Your claiming of 4 KIA, 19 WIA, 1 MIA is from the very first report. 1 MIA was found dead in the steering room, and 1 WIA died after sustaining his wound. Therefore, total number became 6 KIA and 18 WIA. Kadrun (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Kadrun, you need to supply your more up to date source in the article then, as per WP:Verifiability and WP:NONENG. Both sources currently given, including the ROK MOD report, say "Four South Korean sailors were killed, 19 were wounded and one went missing." Rwendland (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for this edit Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: RNLI lifeguards beach RIBs[edit]

I created a new cat, commons:Category:RNLI lifeguard boats, because they are to all intents and purposes a lifeboat. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown[edit]

I wonder why you edited my addition to YAB's page regarding the Twitter row, to remove reference to the Independent closing comments on her article justifying her actions, and deleting all comments? I can see that removal of evidence poses a problem for the notion of citation; however, this gives carte blanche to online censorship, does it not? The fact is that YAB's article provoked almost universal criticism - the Indy responded by deleting this and concealing the fact. Your edit further hides what happened. And surely, the *absence* of any comments on such a contentious article does suggest something occurred...?

FrankFisher —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to meet Jimmy Wales in Bristol 13th Jan 2011?[edit]

As you may have heard Jimmy Wales is coming to give a talk at the Victoria Rooms in Bristol on 13th January 2011 as part of wikipedia's 10th birthday celebrations. There is a possibility of a small group of local active wikipedians to meet him for 20 mins before the talk. If you are interested could you respond on the centralised discussion on the Bristol wikiproject talk page?— Rod talk 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recreation Ground (Bath)[edit]

Thanks for your comment on the talk page of Recreation Ground (Bath), would you be happy to tackle it as you have more detailed info - or do you want me to have a go?— Rod talk 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:British politicians convicted of driving offences[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:British politicians convicted of driving offences, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Expulsion as a myth[edit]

There is a new German book, which explains the Expulsion "Die Vertreibung im deutschen Erinnern. Legenden, Mythos, Geschichte" by Hahn and Hahn. I have removed Kamusella's estimate, because it's based on word games - the "Vertreibung" has several meanings and Kamusella apparently gives the number of all evacuated AND expelled from post-war Poland. Kamusella is a regional Silesian historians and his opinions about general history don't have any value.Xx236 (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


I've nominated the image you uploaded for deletion on the commons and this is courtesy notification. Theanphibian (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Villages in Bath and North East Somerset[edit]

Thanks for the heads up re Category:Villages in Bath and North East Somerset. I didn't have that one on my watchlist. I've added my comment - I think between us we could make it a viable cat pretty quickly.— Rod talk 21:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would put Bath into the towns cat - there is no point in having a city cat with only one entry.— Rod talk 07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris Busby[edit]

I do recognise that it may be WP policy not to mentioned discreditation in the main intro for a biography. I will try and see how to move and implement it properly.

I am very concerned (from the reputable sources I've read) that he is abusing his scientific credentials to advance his political career and where reputable institutions have made a point of discrediting his work I feel it is only right for that to be included in his biography.

His views on radiation deaths are enormously at odds with other scientists in the radiological community and I think he presents a real danger to the health of people affected by these tragic events (stress and panic have had measurable detrimental effects in Chernobyl).

Take an article by Allison Wade written on the BBC website as a contrast to the sorts of things Chris Busby is coming out with. MatthewFP (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do bear in mind this is not an article about the topic of radiation deaths, but a person. I've replied about the edit at Talk:Christopher Busby#Journal of Radiological Protection. Rwendland (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch[edit]

Hi. I shall be glad if you can join the discussion of the requested move of the article title of Murray MacLehose, of which you may be interested. --Clithering (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter Gibson[edit]

peter gibson

Not sure why this page was deleted... And what the guidlines are that have been set for someone of interest within the entertainment industry.

Peter Gibson has been on TV, Broadway and Film as an actor and has produced, written and directed for film and television.

There were two references from variety articles written about the subject

Gibson Steps into Limelight

Fashion Label Tries on Reality Series

As well as credits included from Imdb.

Peter Gibson

Please explain how this is not sufficient?

Whateverfilms (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

User warnings[edit]


Something seems to have gone wrong with your user warning here and it has not been dated or signed. Could you correct it? Thanks -- (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Rwendland (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a small thanks![edit]

There has been so much speculations about the Bushehr plant, in part justified by unreliable sources, so I was very glad to see this edit backed by a quality source. It's appreciated :) – Danmichaelo (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


Correct use of a misleading quote. It should really be "Design Aspects" or "Certain Design Features". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickstick4 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. So PWR3 is not a close copy of a US design, as our warhead primaries are? I've not come across a cite that says that, but would be very interested to see one. The sources are sometime more ambiguous than Fox's words, but I've put that down to nationalism downplaying the US contribution. Rwendland (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is so much is classified - - did not think the UK could/should operate Naval Nuclear reactors. Hence when the first design was supplied; the US and UK have not shared any information since...until now. Hence it is only design aspects, not whole design. Most US involvement is overplayed frankly. Many in the UK were not happy getting PWR1 as we were only three or four years from a 100% UK version, but it was Rickover's standards that i think the UK Admiralty at the time wanted. On a side -> the US would never have had Nuclear weapons if it wasn't for the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickstick4 (talkcontribs) 22:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you had some history editing the Interpal page. I am trying to get a consensus on some improvements to the page I had suggested. It would be great if you could take a look and offer me any advice (Talk:Interpal). Thanks in advance!! Za'atar94 13:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

richard white[edit]

your first error is calling him Fr Richard. i would suggest we go to reach a concensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potty1234 (talkcontribs) 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for bringing a reprobate IP vandal to my attention. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear power in France[edit]

I'm afraid I cannot understand what you wrote in the article in relation to total energy usage(there are a few spelling mistakes too), but even with my eyes correcting for them I still don't understand why there is now 2 contradicting sources on the number. I think the reference I provided neatly talks about the various claims, it's around 30% total energy usage.

I haven't touched the page since your edit, as I wanted to discuss with you first about what you meant.

Either way, I'd like to thank you for helping me update the article. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The difference are quite tricky to explain concisely. I'll have a go at rewording again, and expand on the topic in the article talk page, so perhaps you or others can improve on it further. Rwendland (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Morning - Wikimedia UK and Data protection[edit]

Hello, hope you're well :)

I thought I'd drop by and say that the board of Trustees have approved the website privacy policy and thank you for helping shape it :) They are looking at your proposed amendment re the Data Protection Policy and one Trustee has some questions - you don't have to comment but if you wanted to I thought it was only polite to let you know :) It's here Meanwhile if you're interested in this sort of thing please let me know because I'm trying to put together contacts for people I can alert directly when we're starting to put together, revise and update policy (I know its a bit dry, but also important!)

Thanks again - ping me if you ever need anything and re above too! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station[edit]

I agree with you that "decommissioned" is not a proper category for SONGS, but what would you think about the category Category:Former nuclear power stations in the United States? --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a much better category. I'd be inclined to wait until the reactors are defueled, but wouldn't object if you think that's better. On another point, I'm inclined to trim back some of the older, less important, info in the article - which might also partly address the POV complaint a week or so back. If I overdo that, please feel free to revert. Rwendland (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with trimming some of the no-longer-very-important stuff, as we mentioned on the talk page. I'll help. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Grade II* listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset[edit]

Hi, I don't know if you saw the message on WP Somerset, but I was wondering whether you would be interested in helping with Grade II* listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset as you are familiar with lots of the Bath street articles etc?— Rod talk 07:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom employment law[edit]

Category:United Kingdom employment law, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom employment case law[edit]

Category:United Kingdom employment case law, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid the information you included in Wikipedia did not tell the whole story....[edit]

Thanks for your several edits where you point out:

Ukranian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov stated that the problem that finally blocked the EU deal were conditions proposed for an International Monetary Fund loan being negotiated at the same time, which would require big budget cuts and a 40% increase in gas bills.[1][2]


On 7 December 2013 the IMF clarified that it was not insisting on a single-stage increase in natural gas tariffs in Ukraine by 40%, but recommended that they be gradually raised to an economically justified level while compensating the poorest segments of the population for the losses from such an increase by strengthening targeted social assistance.[3] The same day IMF Resident Representative in Ukraine Jerome Vacher stated that this particular IMF loan is worth 4 billion US Dollars and that it would be linked with "policy, which would remove disproportions and stimulated growth".[4] So

  1. ^ David M. Herszenhorn (22 November 2013). "Ukraine Blames I.M.F. for Halt to Agreements With Europe". New York Times. Retrieved 10 December 2013. 
  2. ^ Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (22 November 2013). "Historic defeat for EU as Ukraine returns to Kremlin control". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 10 December 2013. 
  3. ^ MF not insisting on single-stage increase in tariffs, says resident representative in Ukraine, Interfax-Ukraine (7 December 2013)
  4. ^ IMF links loan amount to Ukraine with reforms, Ukrinform (7 December 2013)

So the New York Times and Daily Telegraph might be the victim of a PR-trick by Mr. Azarov or Mr. Azarov did not understand the IMF correctly before 7 December 2013. Whatever the case for NPOV reasons I believe the above 7 December IMF response should be always mentioned in the same article(s) next to Mr. Azarov's above claims. I have done so already. And I do not blame you for sloppy reporting by the New York Times and Daily Telegraph. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


Yes, seems odd; can't help wondering why the Montessori Schools Association have said absolutely nothing publicly until after the school closure order... The sponsor thing seems to be something to do with the original application for setting up the school, with Montessori (not necessarily the MSA, either) supporting the application rather than providing actual funding. There is a lot left unsaid by Bujak - is he referring to the MEAB accreditation when he says Montessori were rebuffed? Still, as the MSA have had 13 schools rated "inadequate" by Ofsted so far this year, I guess they don't want to draw too much attention to themselves. Blackberry Sorbet (talkcontribs) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the timing:
2009: Times says "Sponsored by Montessori"
2010: MSA "warned the DfE of the school's likely failure"
27 August 2011: no mention of sponsorship in Funding Agreement on signing
the most probable explanation is that the school and MSA could not agree terms in 2009/10 (or something gave MSA cold feet about the school), and the sponsorship did not go ahead. But that is speculation. I think we should rephrase the article to be less certain of the sponsorship happening (eg insert "intended" somehow). Rwendland (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That looks very likely. Blackberry Sorbet (talkcontribs) 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A Guardian article clarifies. "Discovery’s founders claimed that the school used a “Montessori curriculum and approach,” and the school’s failure has caused disquiet among the British Montessori education community. Because the name Montessori – after Maria Montessori, the Italian founder of the education movement that emphasises independence and self-discipline among pupils – is not trademarked in Europe, there was no bar to Discovery using the term despite not being accredited. The founders of Discovery – the former head Lindsey Snowdon, who resigned in October, and her husband, Andrew – approached the Montessori Schools Association for aid but refused to go through an accreditation process or commit to hiring suitably qualified teachers." Not sure how we missed that, tbh. Blackberry Sorbet (talkcontribs) 14:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Church of the Holy Trinity, Newton St Loe[edit]

Hi, I've just started an article on the Church of the Holy Trinity, Newton St Loe and used one of your photos - do you have any more info or pics?— Rod talk 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hardly any of my pics of the church came out nicely. I've added one of the tomb inside, but it's not that good. Remove if you prefer. I'll take some more on a sunny day. Rwendland (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
OK Thanks.— Rod talk 18:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cliveden photo change[edit]

Hello :) Sorry if i changed the photo too quickly by not checking the descriptive text below it.

I want to change it again with a right fiting text, is that okay? is a much better looking pictures than , isnt it?

Tell me please what you think about.

Kind regards,

JGR&BXL talkcontribs) 22:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC+2)


Thank you for your excellent edits to the page on Gen. Haftar.

However one particular edit seems unhelpful, The Financial Times reported that of about 20 people who knew Haftar it had spoken to "none could identify any of his interests outside war", and that "He wasn’t well informed in politics, relationships between countries or cultures"

It could seem surprising to readers, given his life story, that he might have no interest in politics. The problem is that this information gives a particular viewpoint of a group of people without saying (or even hinting) who they are. Are they Libyans or Americans or Egyptians etc.? Are they good friends, or vague acquaintances, or rivals? Do they know him in a professional or social context? Are they military personnel or politicians or activists or something else? When did they meet him? If they dealt with him during a war, as implied by the inclusion of this text in the section called "Role in the Libyan Civil War", readers might feel it would influence whether he was mainly interested in war at that time. All this information would help readers to understand the context of the interaction and what the comments mean. Since the source is subscription-only, it can't be seen to check. Would you be able to look at this again?

Contributorzero (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long in replying, I've only had a small amount of WP time the last few days. I see the point you are making, on the other hand it seems useful to say something about General Haftar's character given such a reputable source says something about it after consulting 20-odd people - which given FT's reputation you would think is a balanced representation of his contacts, but they do not say who they were. I agree the FT quote "wasn’t well informed in politics" is very surprising given his position. I'm happy with you removing this, and will ponder if there is a better way to give the info. FT registration is no-cost for a few articles a month, but here is a wider quote of what they said:
Even supporters acknowledge his political ambitions, suspecting he plans to anoint himself leader of the country’s liberals. The armed forces he now purports to lead are successors to the Gaddafi-era military he repeatedly turned against; the Islamist militias he is fighting are the ones with which he fought in the 2011 uprising. Many wonder whether he is a committed democrat, as he claims, or just another Arab military officer with dictatorial ambitions, in the mould of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Syria’s Hafez Assad and Gaddafi.
You need someone tough like Haftar to step up to the outlaws,” says the commentator Abdel Hamid el-Jadi. “He has experience in the Libyan military and he knows the tribes. If he has political ambitions we’ll deal with that in the second stage.”
But others worry about what they describe as a brittle personality and myopic worldview. Of nearly two- dozen people who have had dealings with him and spoke to the Financial Times, none could identify any of his interests outside war. In meetings with exiled opposition groups in the US and Africa, before he returned to serve as the rebel army’s chief of staff in the 2011 uprising, he spoke only of his military expertise. “He wasn’t well informed in politics, relationships between countries or cultures,” said one Gaddafi-era opposition activist.
Many Libyans and international experts fear the offensive that Mr Haftar is co-ordinating could further destabilise the country. In televised appearances, he has a habit of conflating the Islamist militias with members of parliament and the government who belong to the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, and with al-Qaeda.
Rwendland (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for putting the wider quote, it is very helpful.
Even with the FT's reputation, I find the vague "two dozen people" comment too vague to be helpful.
"In meetings with exiled opposition groups in the US and Africa, before he returned to serve as the rebel army’s chief of staff in the 2011 uprising, he spoke only of his military expertise. “He wasn’t well informed in politics, relationships between countries or cultures,” said one Gaddafi-era opposition activist" seems clear and relatively contextualized. It is unfortunate that we don't know if this activist's comment was before 2014, but readers can more or less judge the context and come to their conclusion. Perhaps that would work as a whole quote.
Contributorzero (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC) suggested edit[edit]

Accuracy - 'The site aspires to have an ethical stance with the principles of being free to use with no advertisements'

No advertising, independent, controlled by an editorial code etc is repeated but this is contested because the Advertising Standards Authority from time to time adjudicates about marketing promotions by

The ASA which regulates marketing communication (advertising) clearly does not consider the website has no advertisements. Eelite (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

100 Greatest Geosites[edit]

I notices that you just added a reference to the Geological Society's 100 Greatest Geosites list to an article. Just in case you're interested, I thought I might tell you that I've now added a list of the sites on the list that are currently missing Wikipedia articles to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Environment and geology -- The Anome (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your help with the article. I was just wondering if you may have come across anything that says why Jenny Marra decided not to put her name forward. There seem to be a lot of articles reporting that she'd ruled herself out, but unlike the others who declined to stand, nothing that explains her reasoning. Subsequent events could give some insight into the decision, I suppose, but as I'd like to take this forward for GA eventually it would be good to cover as much as possible. This is Paul (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know why, other than Marra becoming a co-chair for Murphy’s campaign which is already mentioned.(also in [7][8]). Rwendland (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I suspect the co-chair thing is probably the reason she didn't go for it, but thanks for taking a look. This is Paul (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Labour leadership election[edit]

Hi again, I'd be interested in your opinion about a couple of changes I've made to the article. The campaign section was getting a bit long and difficult to edit, so I've merged it with the candidates, but created a separate section for each candidate and their policies. I thought it might be a bit easier to manage that way, but let me know what you think, and by all means revert it if you disagree. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Blackberry Hill Hospital[edit]

I spotted your edit summary at Blackberry Hill Hospital "found cite for 1996 UWE purchase, so a puzzle who students arriving 1992-ish were". The site was occupied by Avon and Gloucester College of Nursing before it became part of UWE.— Rod talk 15:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Googled around and the cites I found claim "Avon and Gloucester College of Health", so I've added that. (Also this academic cite which I didn't use as excessive for this point.) Hope that makes sense. Rwendland (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, I noticed you did a recent edit on the cost of nuclear power and referenced it to Do you know if it's pro or anti nuclear? Either way, it should probably be taken with a grain of salt. There are zillions of anti-nuclear websites. They often quote massive prices for nuclear energy which, in my opinion, are just a delusion. If it's a pro-nuclear site, then there's a political agenda, such as trying (possibly reasonably) to improve the economics of nuclear vs coal. I'll check now but I wanted to offer you both sides before I made my own mind up. If it's another anti-nuclear beat-up, I won't delete but a may add an alternative opinionGraemem56 (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear waste[edit]

Hi Rwendland, I noticed you edited "ongoing costs of storing low level nuclear waste for over 240,000 years" and changed it to "ongoing costs of storing high level nuclear waste for over 240,000 years" Graemem56 (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Low level waste is in fact correct, although the 240000 years seems to have been plucked out of the air, maybe we should not be specific about the time.

The difference between high-level and low-level waste goes like this- 131I is short-lived and high-level. 129I is low -level waste and long-lived. But both of them only decay once. One mole (6x1023 atoms) of 131I decays the same amount (3x1023 decays) in 8 days that one mole (6x1023 atoms) of 129I decays in 15.7 million years.

So 131I decays 700 million times faster than 129I, but 129I lasts 700 million times longer. 130gms of 131I will release 90 Kw of energy whilst 130gms of 129I releases 25 microwatts of energyGraemem56 (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Bath and North East Somerset[edit]

Unitary authorities have the status of :

(1) Districts (Central Bedfordshire, Bath and North East Somerset, West Berkshire)
(2) Boroughs (Hartlepool, Reading, Torbay)
(3) Cities (Nottingham, Plymouth, Bristol)
(3) Counties (Rutland, Northumberland, Shropshire)

In order to preserve the city status of Bath, Bath and North East Somerset has opted to remain a district, rather than apply for borough status. The term "unitary authority" is a description of the services provided, not of the status held. Such authorities are defined as either "districts that gained county functions" or "counties that gained district functions". Bath and North East Somerset falls into the first category. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks[edit]

Thank you for trying to correct my page. When I read alteration left without a footprint a few days ago I was horried at the changes made.

The item you deleted on Gordon Banks (me) splitting his time between Scotland and Cotswold could use citation Who' Who 1999-onwards, address Gordon Castle, Fochabers IV32 7PQ, being listed each year since.

I now need to find a way to convince editors to remove the 2 possibly 3 citations allegedly from Daily Telegraph. The one original DT article if clicked on does not show my name (DT removed it) and the other two are not from the DT. I sincerely believe that someone in a dark arts branch of a Gov dept added previous libellous comment to blacken my name. I am not preparedto say why. One of the citations shows a photocopy of the original text of a DT article online before my name was removed from it by DT. There are not many people who can obtain that sort of information! Funny how no footprint was left too.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talkcontribs) 10:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Belz women drivers.[edit]

Please read the entire citation before undoing someone else's work.

The quote "children would be barred from their schools if their mothers drove them there" was just a stylistic expression. Read further to see that the ban was on mothers driving - full stop. Also try reading the original letter in Hebrew! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisemannar (talkcontribs) 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kids Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Audit Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alison McGovern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party leadership election, 2015 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)